Perhaps the most badass drug-user of recent times, yet he never quite escaped the ideology of good and evil.
Thoughts?
Why would you expect HST to “escape the ideology of good and evil”? In a sense, that was his business.
I guess I think there is a heavy correlation between drug use and the abandonment of petty idealism.
I will admit that I never read a word of HST, I am basing my question on the Fear and Loathing movie and some snippets of info about the guy.
I do know that we was kinda big on “social justice,” but there seems to me to also be a more metaphysical attachment to good and evil, beyond sociological pragmatism. It surprises me that a person can seek out the freedom of drugs so heavily yet restrict themselves also so heavily. I wish the real guy had been more like the one in the movie, who I’m sure would have eventually abandoned idealism all together to pursue a life of psychedelic exploration.
The movie was OK, but you really need to read the book “Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas” to see that HST was not trying to “escape” reality so much as he was trying to “enhance” it. I think in some ways he had to set himself apart from the establishment in order to achieve the objectivity he sought. And in real life he was about as wild and crazy an s.o.b. you’ll ever encounter (yet still able to maintain a certain intellectuality). But he didn’t allow himself to get lost in the mire of psychedelia; he was chasing the real world, not conspiracy theories. His real-life downfall was not the drugs so much as the booze - alcohol is much more dangerously addictive and deleterious to brain function over the decades of use/abuse suffered by Thompson.
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.
I don’t disagree. Defining yourself based on your experience with drugs is just as bad as doing the same based on your sexual conquests. But, in my opinion, it is important to realize that defining oneself based on any external role (eg. I am a parent; I am an engineer; I am a conservative) is ultimately shallow, and worse, sets up an unhealthy (unskillful) self image.
It is difficult to say to what extent HST let himself be drawn in by his own image, but I always got the impression that he was not all that self-conscious. What he had to say never seemed to be too much about himself, more about the issues.
Have you tried psychedelic drugs?
Btw petty idealism doesn’t refer to all idealism… just the petty.
Snob,
To your first question, yes - extensively. Unfortunately, people like to equate the use of psychoactive substances with ‘mind expansion’, which is horribly misguided. The experiences certainly offer some degree of potential in that regard, but it’s usually squandered.
Regarding your second response, I suppose I’d have to ask you to define “petty”. Is it more petty to be concerned with your haircut than the quality of your drugs?
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.
Good answer. Do you associate that perspective, or attitude, with drug users in general, though? Based on your intentions, I’d say you’re among the minority.
Sure, but both are ultimately superfluous. Where do you draw the line? Is sharply altering your brain chemistry for recreation a petty risk?
What do you mean?
You know I’m not insulting you, right?
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.
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).
[i]"The eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell discussed visions and experiences in his major opus “A History of Western Philosophy” in 1945. Russell noted that subjective experiences were not always reliable:
"William James describes a man who got the experience from laughing-gas; whenever he was under its influence, he knew the secret of the universe, but when he came to, he had forgotten it. At last, with immense effort, he wrote down the secret before the vision had faded. When completely recovered, he rushed to see what he had written. It was:[/i]
[i][b] 'A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.'[/b][/i]
“What seems like sudden insight may be misleading, and must be tested soberly when the divine intoxication has passed.”
Do not confuse extirpation with exploration.
Oh, I see. My apologies, that wasn’t my intention at all. My initial response was just regarding the statement I quoted. The tenancy of people to perceive drug abuse as an indication of intelligence, independence, or even balls. Anyone can do drugs, they’re everywhere.
Exactly. That’s why I think you are among a minority. You obviously take time to research and you value the experiences for more than shits and giggles. Meanwhile, kids half our ages are hospitalized for sniffing “bath salts” and loading themselves up on veritable brompton cocktails.
That’s kind of how I see it. But I admittedly consider most concerns born of luxury as petty.
The way they captured the experiences in that movie was impressive - I noticed that during my first viewing. I honestly love the movie now. Still haven’t seen that recent biographical/documentary film they made about him. I think morality plays a very key role in the 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 by it.
Wow. Thanks for that, you have just taught me more in two lines than two months of film production school about the nature of acceptable movie writing.
My view on stupid people doing drugs is also not quite, umm… moral. It seems to me that, although they are not consciously aware of this, they too “travel between dimensions” and it is fascinating to watch your friendly-neighbourhood dumb people morph into something else (granted, usually still dumb and also dangerous on top) from the experience.
The problem with drugs is , basically, that some of them are just way too good. You can blame that on whatever part of our evolution led to classical conditioning psychology.