Perhaps the most badass drug-user of recent times, yet he never quite escaped the ideology of good and evil.
Thoughts?

I guess I think there is a heavy correlation between drug use and the abandonment of petty idealism.
statiktech wrote: If you expect your drug habits to define you, I think you've already given in to petty idealism and mediocrity by the very device[s] with which you attempt to escape them.
statiktech wrote:I guess I think there is a heavy correlation between drug use and the abandonment of petty idealism.
That's often how it seems to the user, but it's probably more of a replacement than anything. The drugs themselves become a source of petty ideals.
People love to talk about their own drug use, like it somehow separates them from the 'common herd'. It doesn't - especially now-a-days. I don't understand why people seek validation by admitting to, or even bragging about, these things. If you expect your drug habits to define you, I think you've already given in to petty idealism and mediocrity by the very device[s] with which you attempt to escape them.
statiktech wrote:people like to equate the use of psychoactive substances with 'mind expansion'
statiktech wrote:Is it more petty to be concerned with your haircut than the quality of your drugs?
FilmSnob wrote:Good for them. I am talking about mind exploration.
It is petty to worry about your haircut. It is not petty to worry about the quality of the chemicals that are about to sharply impact your own brain chemestry.
Good to see you off of you high horse.
statiktech wrote:Sure, but both are ultimately superfluous. Where do you draw the line? Is sharply altering your brain chemistry for recreation a petty risk?
FilmSnob wrote:By the high horse thing, I just meant that you reacted to an idea that seemed interesting to me with defensiveness. Also, it did feel like you were looking down on drug aficionados in general, and I am one.
I really do believe that people take drugs too lightly. If all you are is your brain, then a chemical that can alter its functioning seems to me almost equivalent to inter-dimensional travel.
statiktech wrote:Sure, but both are ultimately superfluous. Where do you draw the line? Is sharply altering your brain chemistry for recreation a petty risk?
Interesting idea. Yeah, maybe it is a petty risk.
About the line, though, I draw it at the amount of impact it has on you as a whole. It's more like a gradual slope than a line.
I saw Fear and Loathing again the other day and I couldn't finish it. It was the first time I watched it sober, and it disgusted me how much morality is actually in it. But this is why I think that the Gilliam-Depp-del Toro team did a historically amazing job: it is a completely different movie when you watch it on drugs. Like, literally, completely different. And I have to say, the druggy version is a lot more compelling (if you have ever done acid, it is remarkable how well they capture the experience).
statiktech wrote: I think morality plays a very key role in film insofar as it establishes a 'reality', or standard, with which the characters conflict. No matter how warped the paradigm becomes to them, they remained constrained and judged by it.
Return to Art, Music, and Entertainment
Users browsing this forum: No registered users