I am currently in the "toying with the idea" stage of writing some literature on psychedelics. Firstly, a disclaimer here is that I intend to keep the final texts free from a trail of DMT-NEXUS leading breadcrumbs, so a bonus in this case is that my writing is unedited, and therefore ripe for edits.

I'm basically putting this out for opinions and thoughts regarding my approach to the subject matter.

Whatever the final piece will look like, it will be more developed and edited a lot, so I ask more for objective subject matter feedback rather than literary input or "hey there's some grammar that isn't quite right".

Tell me what you guys think. I'm trying to start the backbone of a book about the role of drugs mainly psychedelic/entheogenic and the cultural challenges faced by users. That being said it's just a snippet, but here it is:

---

When looking at hallucinogens, with specific regards to the experience produced by entheogenic or psychedelic drugs, it is important to broaden the language used in order to narrow down the value of these experiences, as well as to contribute to a productive and constructive approach towards expanding the knowledge and associated language used to describe these substances and experiences.

In an etymological sense, it is not helpful to lean on the term hallucinogen. A hallucinogen is any drug that causes hallucinations, and this could mean Benadryl, stimulants(when psychosis occurs as a result) as well as what we traditionally think of. Narcan, or Naloxone, is a drug that reverses or blocks the effects of opiates, commonly used to treat overdoses. Since naloxone can cause withdrawal, which in turn can cause hallucinations, even this drug could technically be assigned the label of “hallucinogenic” in a certain context.

What’s more, the association and similarity in wording with psychotic experiences, which differ tremendously in both neurological and subjective quality to psychedelic states, makes the term somewhat useless in this context.

So what other options do we have?

The term psychedelic is the most common term used by recreational users of these drugs, as well as in media coverage. Whilst the term psychedelic has etymological connotations in sync with the reality of the substances, meaning “mind-manifesting”, the social realities faced by users are that the term still has unbreakable ties to the 1960s counterculture movement and all of the propaganda aimed at creating negative mythologies around substances such as LSD.

When one seeks to create a mature and objective atmosphere around the discussion of mind-altering drugs that produce visionary states, it is important for those who seek to involve themselves in a continuation of the creation of a new modern and inclusive culture of use of these substances to tread lightly regarding the language they use and the connotations such choices of word can invoke in the reader or the listener.

One such take on evolved inclusive language is the introduction of the term entheogen into the culture.

The core idea behind designating substances as entheogens is to provide a historical and cultural context to the use of visionary drugs in (usually but not necessarily) shamanic contexts and ceremonies that place emphasis in extracting knowledge and meaning from these experiences. The term can also be applied to the use of such substances in different contexts from the traditional, such as individuals who self administer entheogens for purposes such as exploring and developing their human spirit, coming to terms with the unknown and tackling mental health in unconventional ways.


Before we continue this exploration, first let’s take a look at how the evolution of drugs and our understanding of them played a huge role in psychology and psychiatry.

The molecular structure of LSD with it’s similarity to certain neurotransmitters, and it’s ability to bind with receptor sites that cause the release of serotonin, a neurotransmitter of intense complexity which for our purposes is known as a crucial moderator of mood and ultimately consciousness, is what led to much of our understanding of modern models for psychiatry and consciousness.

Never before had the medical community come across such a subjective drug, and naturally this led to important and valuable research that ultimately evolved psychiatric fields and the pharmaceutical industry.

What is the perhaps simplified wrap up of these events?

LSD was widely explored, both in and out of the lab. Before legal research was outlawed, studies were being conducted to test the potential for LSD to treat depression, pain, alcoholism and more. Over-enthusiastic clinical psychologist Timothy Leary is best known for breaking completely away from science, and irresponsibly advocating the use of LSD and psychedelics in reckless ways proclaiming that everyone should take them and that new drug experiences were an evolutionary tool.

Whilst valuable and profound insight was stoked as well as offered by Leary, he ultimately played a major role in the creation of a threatening(to the status quo) counterculture that still exists as a shell of what it was in the 60s and 70s, one that led to the politicization of drugs and many “witch hunts” aimed at LSD and psychedelics.

The value, whether subjective or objective, that we assign to this cultural movement, is a constant balancing act of recognizing a true entheogenic revolution as having real world consequences, whether based in stigma or in ideation. The 60s were simply too much of a context-lacking open and aggressive challenge to the fabric of society itself (for many people), to allow for mature dialogue in an atmosphere of political fear mongering and punitive, cruel prison sentences. Rather than bring us together, entheogens and psychedelics divided us, and in the wave of love and flower-power many vulnerable souls, as Terrence McKenna referred to, were left behind as mental casualties, unable to process and contextualize, let alone begin to integrate their often scary experiences that inevitably occurred in many through this period of widespread uncontrolled use.

Hey — fellow writer here. Thanks for sharing your writing, it's a courageous and brilliant thing to do.

I guess, for me, I read this as an introduction before you go into the cultural/sociopolitical challenges that psychedelic users find. My advice with this is to pick a tack and stick with it from the beginning. Language, like you say, is its own barrier to articulating these experiences and indeed the vernacular that is employed to describe them. For example, I'm very new to the Nexus as a member (I've been visiting as a Guest though for years), with little to no real chemistry knowledge — I find myself looking at the Nexus index all the time reading up on terms used because there are so many terms used within the community itself that are niche and require thorough research to build an understanding. My point being, what you say about language accessibility is its own chapter — its own book in fact, and maybe there's a choice here for you in terms of your target audience. I get the impression this text would be for people that are already pretty familiar with psychs and differentiating these terms, so will not need definitions for terms like 'entheogen'. But if you want it to be more accessible, consider bringing definitions in. Essentially, your intro here is its own massive discussion and I think keeping it to the basics, maybe what the intention is behind writing this text, and its impact, would be more useful. It would also be worth considering weaving your personal experiences of psychs and challenges you have faced into the introduction.

My second point of advice is tone and I know you said you weren't looking for literary feedback in terms of grammar but actually I think it is bound to the subject matter you're exploring and how you explore it. There are parts of the text that read very academically, and then areas where that tone lulls and feels more familiar/less clinical. I prefer the latter because I like non-fiction that is overfamiliar and looser. It makes for a more comfortable, chill read that doesn't feel like education but is. So building on that idea of tone, pick a pronoun carefully. Do you want to make this text feel more collective, e.g. 'So what other options do we have?', or do you want to create some distance e.g. 'When one seeks to...' ?
Avoid phrases like 'It is important to...' — get to the core of your point and say 'Consider broadening the language used...' Cut out the middleman. Cut out the second year undergrad degree talk. Don't force 'what's important' down the reader's throat. When I read preambles like 'It is important to...' I find myself wondering why writers feel the need to tell me 'this is important'. Illustrate why it's important instead of saying it's important.

My third and final point is punctuation. It's your best friend, and it breaks up your sentences and flow evenly. I read all of my writing out loud because I can hear out for inflexions or problems with my writing in a way that staring at a screen for 3 hours or a paper manuscript doesn't allow for me to do. But that's also another point — you can also print your work out and annotate, that's a great way of self-disciplining editing. There are areas of your writing that are four sentences long, when I read them aloud, I find myself losing the thread of the point and also running out of air to breathe. Pin point those areas and break them down. Use all your senses, physically go into the writing.

There are points where this book feels like it's for a familiar audience that reads on this topic widely and then there are areas where it reads like it would for a beginner, e.g. references to Timothy Leary. Decide that if you were to read this book for yourself, what would you want to know the most?

By far the most interesting part of your writing, for me, was the point you made at the start about language accessibility and this is a lesser-discussed part of the discourse within psychedelic communities, it's also an ever-evolving vernacular that is expansive and it is there to remedy perhaps, the 'language-less-ness' of these experiences beyond articulation. And you're right, 'hallucinogen' is far too vague and ambiguous a term to convey the shattering volumes of a breakthrough trip. To be honest, as I said earlier, the whole text could be on this. Whereas the vast number of challenges psychedelic users face is in essence, a ten-volume series. I would pick your niche carefully, research it, and then if there's a sequel in it, go for it. If you want to look at sociopolitical challenges, pick a time period — the challenges users faced in the 60s vs. today are different conversations emerging from age-old bureaucratic impulses. And those again are their own separate texts. There are parts of your writing that are articulate and thought-provoking, perhaps maybe even divisive takes (I'm not sure people would agree that the 60s were entirely 'context-lacking', there was much in the way of why so many turned to psychedelics and formed its revolution). Either way it all makes for good literature and the best thing is that the premise for your text is by no means a neutral discussion, it is weighted in favour of psychedelic use. As it should be.

All power to you and thanks again for sharing.

Thank you for the honest feedback.

Like I said, it's unedited, and my approach is "write first edit later", especially since I intend to distance the final copy from this site in order to keep away unwanted attention(should I ever actually finish this, as my writing is first and foremost for me).

You're definitely right with your commentary. It's cluttered, and it mixes tones. This part is indeed an introduction, but the format of the final piece is still unknown.

As for your "target audience" points, also very well spotted. I'm not 100% sure yet who this will be aimed at, but I hope to ultimately target a "middle ground" audience, one that enjoys some context and background as an introduction, yet is prepared to open their mind enough to go down the deeper rabbit holes.

Including my own experiences will be a sure thing.

Instead of picking apart all of your points just to agree with them in principle I'll simply thank you for the valuable input. You made great points and gave me stuff to think about.

As I continue writing, which I'm doing in a non-linear way, I'll refine it all to a place where the tone and info is presented at a consistent pace for a consistent audience.

Final thoughts, this mix of beginner and advanced knowledge and dialogue as it relates to the subject matter was intended to be more for a nexus audience to give contextual input rather than wording etc. I wholesomely appreciate the literary feedback, but I do want to stress that my aim with the original post was to gather opinions on how the real community and cultural stakeholders in this feel about the way in which I've started to bring up the subject matter.

Thanks for the praise regarding the choice of tackling language usage, I did feel that this is a central point, as evolving the language and using words on our own terms is crucial in combatting slanderous undeserved criticism, instead making room for genuine criticism that may hold real value for the movement.

Many thanks for the input.