http://youtu.be/j91CMGdIz94

Another Great with Amber Lyon!

The Fortress of Prohibition was already battered by recent assaults, but Amber Lyon is now really laying waste to it.
I remember Nexians discuss launching a media campaign about the truth of psychedelics to couner the propaganda lies.
If any time would be optimal to do that, it would be Now.

Its good that she is trying to spread the good word, and she is contributing more than I, but it comes accross like psychedelics are gonna save the world.

Drink Aya and you will be fine and the problems of the world will go away. It doesn't really ring true to me.

I think this is like everything in life when something ˝new/radical˝is being introduced on greater scale. Taking psychedelics alone will not save the world but starting to incorporate this as something as ˝normal˝ as drinking alcohol is going to trigger something. What that is is going to be a system shock for sure. What will come out of it no one knows but is something to behold for next generations or perhaps even in our life times. Another step in this incredible story.

So, last time I critiqued Amber Lyon, I caught a decent amount of blowback. Perhaps this time I can better articulate the specific qualms I highlighted last time. In watching this interview, I was saddened, but unsurprised to see that she made a number of the sorts of statements I had previously predicted (and stated that I was concerned about, as her position is accompanied by a fair amount of publicity) as being common to folks who are new to the psychedelic experience.

Here is a list of some of the troubling/problematic quotes from this interview. If you don't understand why I have selected any of them, please indicate which one(s), and I will be happy to elaborate.

















Problematic themes running throughout the interview:

Her focus on individualized trauma, rather than systemic trauma resulting from institutional oppression.

The use of "cure", "natural culture", "natural medicine".

She repeatedly says that studies show a psychedelic "may do X or Y" and then follows up by stating that the studies "PROVE X or Y"

Her non-stop dichotomizing of medicine and drug.

---

As an aside/super PS - at the beginning of the show, Trainor claims the US is a "...culture, that while making up 5% of the world's population locks up 25% of the world's population..."

This is wrong. The US is ~5% of the global population and has ~25% of the world's prison population. Kind of a significant difference...

We cant handpick who will be or is a proper representative for this since we know what a human factor adds to this ˝formula˝.

I will let the hippy side of me say that there is nothing out of the ordinary happening here and this great divine show is moving along with or without our conscious consent or involvement.

thank you for sharing this, i love the discourse they have. Really shines light in all kinds of cynical corners, which is actually the first time i see something like that in a talk about psychedelics.

Snozzleberry i agree that anyone that puts their opinions up in the public domain is fair game for criticism so i once again apologise if i came across as a bit of a blow hard.


I made a correction to your quote.


Why is this problematic? Problematic for who? Her focus on individual trauma maybe down to the fact that that is how she has cured herself, by focusing on herself.



I agree that medicines and drugs do not need to be dichotomised but maybe her target audience doesn"t understand this. Medical marijuana is becoming legal in US , i would imagine that a catalyst for this change would have been the word medical being in the description. Sometimes you have to speak out in a language that those , who may not iniitially have the same point of view, can understand and relate to.



Yes he probly misread his cue card. Schoolboy error.

As far as i can see she is another figure that is speaking out in favour of legalising drugs that may appeal to a certain demographic. You have people like Joe Rogan (the thinking person"s jock), Terrence Mckenna (loquacious eccentric uncle), Jeremy Narby (hard science turned spiritual anthropologist), the Nexus (the best resource for psychedelic drugs that i know of) and now we have another string to our bow, Amber Lion (newbie, idealistically confused shaggamuffin). I think that all of these people have their hearts in the right places. Most, if not all, have presented incorrect information, at one time or other. Terrence Mckenna has talked monumental amounts of bollocks at times but most people think that the sun shines out of his backside.

Hey hug46, no hard feelings, I'm glad to continue the discussion

Thanks for the correction, I was transposing through much of the interview and am happy to acknowledge any mistakes/typos I made.


This is problematic because she keeps saying she wants to "focus on the core of things" and extrapolates her experiences with psychedelics onto an imagined "whole" of humanity.

This actually ties in with comments from our last discussion about Lyon (the points about trauma-inducing societies) as well as comments from a recent discussion between endlessness and I, which included the importance of naming capitalism as a major (if not THE major) root problem we face.

Thus, when she presents an abstracted "collective madness/insanity" as the cause for trauma, not only is she talking about a systemic trauma, she is also sidestepping the naming of capitalism (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot say). This is problematic in several ways.

First, with regards to creating an abstracted "collective madness" as the "root" of societal problems, she ignores all of the actual institutions of capitalism that have a daily traumatic impact on our lives in myriads of ways. Rather than dealing with a difficult and nuanced reality, she has constructed a simplified, easily vilified abstraction (and one that is, unfortunately, couched in ableist language). This is problematic because it obscures, rather than clarifies the real-world sources of the problems that we regularly face in our lives.

Collective madness is not the reason why watersheds are being bespoiled. Collective madness is not the reason people are being forced out of their homes at gunpoint. Collective madness is not the reason why police guard truckloads of food on their way to the dump. Collective madness is not the reason why the most biodiverse regions in the world are being raped by industrial machinery engaged in extractive resource acquisition. Collective madness is not the reason why police murder striking workers, people of color, and dissidents. Collective madness is not the reason why corporations control states. Collective madness is not the reason why states hold the position of the bloodiest institutions in history. The list goes on...

These things have precise causes that are actually fairly straightforward to explain and predict when using the logic of capitalism. The traumas these systems produce are also logical byproducts. Thus we arrive at the second major problematic component of couching a response in the sense of individualized trauma: her model assumes a systemic treatment (in the form of widespread usage of psychedelics) while neglecting to address the systemic causes of the trauma she is claiming will be cured.

As a quick aside, afaik, most of the studies involving psychedelics and trauma (and even anecdotal reports) do not present psychedelics as "curing" trauma. In fact, PTSD, by nature, is not an acute illness, so talking about a "cure" is both medically incorrect and rather dismissive of the experiences of people who struggle with PTSD for years or decades. Similar examples would include addiction and cancer, where treatments may exist, but relapse and remission are harsh realities. This dismissiveness makes her claim about being unable to experience anxiety, in a one woman case-study, particularly troubling given the myriads of folks living with PTSD (regardless of whether or not they have engaged in psychedelic therapies).

Back to my assertion that her model assumes a systemic treatment (in the form of widespread usage of psychedelics) while neglecting to address the systemic causes of the trauma she is claiming will be cured. Her example of bankers and businessmen is perfect in this sense. There are no such things as "responsible investments" nor is there "sustainable ayahuasca tourism." So, while in her eyes, this banker and that businessman have been "cured" and are now leading to an end to the "collective insanity" through their own paths, in reality, they are still perpetuating capitalism/industrial society, along with the inherent traumas and abuses that go with the territory.

This lack of acknowledgement of the mechanics of capitalism, which I previously called "lazy" because I did not believe it to be ignorant, may, in fact, be ignorance rather than laziness. Not only because the systemic causes of individual and collective traumas are nowhere to be found in her analysis (at least as I understand it), but also because their absence is accompanied by such caricatures of the "noble savages" who inhabit the Amazon and have been working with these medicines for so long that they don't know what anxiety/depression is.

I find it hard to believe that the victims of colonialism and genocide have no understanding of anxiety/depression. This is the first notion that many Anthropologists work to disabuse readers of their ethnographies of. Read Narby or Beyer or any other serious anthropologist's ethnography and you will see the degree to which the authors work to inform their readers as to the humanity of the shamans and indigenous people in general. The fact that these are real people, with real problems and human flaws like anyone else.

Imo, it's impossible that the Waorani, Shuar, and Amazonian Kichwa in the Yasuni feel no anxiety or depression over Ecuador's recent approval of drilling in the pristine and incredibly biodiverse region of the Amazon that they call Home. This drilling isn't happening because of an abstract "collective madness"...it's happening because the logic of capitalism demands it.

Presenting these components as abstracted unknowns that can be cured through widespread use of psychedelics, with a focus on individualized traumas and no systemic critique or component focused on dismantling these systems smacks of the failed proselytizing of Leary and others who believe(d) that psychedelics are The Answer rather than A Catalyst. The disconnect is dangerous, imo, which is precisely why I've invested this much time and energy attempting to articulate my concern over the amount of publicity her position stands to generate for her views on psychedelics.

I agree SnozzleBerry.

Snozz, I share your passion. Though I also see good reason for not including all the things you list in a discussion of this type. If I were to create a pro psychedelic documentary displaying all the things you put forth this documentary would become blacklisted as a conspiracy theory documentary rather than one about the positive use and impact on society that psychedelics would have.

I hope you understand my point, which is that each important topic is so in depth that they really need their own spokespeople. It still seems like misinformation but at at the same time I feel that most people can only digest so much.

I strongly disagree for several reasons.

First, as laid out in my above critique, "collective madness" is infinitely more "conspiracy theory" territory than critiques of capitalism. There are (and have been, for some time) entire schools of academic thought focused on critiquing the mechanisms and institutions of capitalism.

This is not conspiracy theory, this is sound social science, economics, and political science territory. I can produce numerous peer-reviewed academic papers focusing on the institutions and mechanisms I am discussing. The same cannot be said for the abstracted "collective madness" invoked by Lyon.

Just because something is frowned on or disparaged by dominant society does not make it invalid "conspiracy theory." Will it get "blacklisted" or otherwise disparaged? Perhaps. That said, I'm not sure what "blacklisted" means in the digital age. There are numerous documentaries on illegal substances and political stances that challenge the status quo. These are not necessarily popular with dominant culture and its adherents, but they are readily accessed by interested parties. Can something be blacklisted in the age of digital media and P2P networks? I think not. The widespread dissemination of the blueprints for the Liberator, a 3d printed gun, are a perfect example of this.



I don't think this is the case. I don't think you can just parcel it up nice and neat and say "This is clearly only this...and that is clearly only that." The war on [some people who use certain] drugs is inherently tied to both the overtly Political and the overtly Drug. We have countless examples of intersectionality here, including everything from international political actions (see: Iran-Contra) to personal lives (see: Jonathan Magbie).

Additionally, it's not so much that it seems like misinformation as much as it is misinformation. I know I'm probably going to catch flak for what I'm about to say, but I feel that the labeling is important. To invoke racist notions of "noble savages" in the advocacy of psychedelics/cognitive liberty is not acceptable. Full stop.

And, as I stated earlier, creating abstract concepts and presenting them as "the core of the problem" is "problematic because it obscures, rather than clarifies the real-world sources of the problems that we regularly face in our lives." That is to say, I don't understand defending her analysis on the grounds of "people can only digest so much," as she is not only painting a partial picture, she is painting an inaccurate picture. If it's important to be careful about how much intellectual fare people are offered (and I don't think it is), it stands to reason that they should only be offered Grade A+, Prime intellectual fare for digestion (to stick with the food metaphor). Her analysis does not make the cut, imo.

Furthermore, I do not believe we can make excuses that "people can only digest so much" in defense of racism, obfuscation, oversimplification, and erroneous critique. I understand that this may sound harsh, but please hear me out. It is not on the speaker to "dumb it down" conceptually and take the easy way out due to some imagined incompetence of the imagined audience. Rather, the speaker bears the onus of presenting the most accessible version of the most detailed analysis they are capable of. If the audience needs to engage with the material several times to fully grasp it, that's ok.

And as far as the concept of spokespeople, in general... To quote Ella Baker, "Strong people don't need strong leaders."

I want to inform you that I do not disagree with most of what your saying. I understand what is actually going on, and am more informed than your average joe on the street. However...



Your statements are strong and dock on point. Although you are forgetting an important fact. Your entire quote above would be fully dismissed, most of the factual information forgotten about ect all due to the fact you placed the word capitalism in it. People tend to focus on key words when they are either skeptical or not very open minded about the subject matter (which happens to be a very large number of people when it comes to psychedelics). Now I know this shouldnt be the number one thing for all of an informative piece to revolve around, but this is usually how people are going to perceive what you say.



What I meant by blacklisted was the unfortunate demise of legitimacy brought on by people focusing on unimportant parts of say a documentary, causing it to lose steam in its onward push in an already uphill battle. There are many documentaries that contain some very good info and yet have been "labeled" conspiracy theory or "debunked" causing it to be swept under the rug and often times made fun of. In fact this is exactly what you are doing, although I regress, as your stance is actually legitimate in comparison to what I was describing above.



I disagree with your outlook on it. Everything is tied to everything. In your view you cant have an argument about one thing without also bringing up what it is tied to. Why don't we throw in there EVERYTHING about the pharmaceutical companies and how we are drowning in SSRI's and then we have to talk about all the children under the age of 18 that are being fed these drugs and how that possibly effects the neurology of it all and how there are all these studies on the effects of pharmaceuticals on the young mind ect ect ect. You end up getting lost in the wealth of information and the viewer can lose sight of the main topic. There is a reason they make books called "growing a garden for dummies".



This all depends on what you are looking for. I want to add to all this debating that my stance is not that what she said was adequate, oh no far from it. I think rather than adding to what she is saying she should have removed some of her key points. She doesn't seem like the person to convey the message you are expecting her to. We have scientists and peer reviewed studies, she just seems like the epitome of the Joe Rogan saying "I'm not smart I just remember what smart people say".

So in a way I agree with you, if she is gonna say anything about the topics that are tied to the main topic it needs to be factual but I still dont see why it needs to contain more information about those side topics just because they go hand in hand. Some people are going to provide simple information that assists in getting the word out, some people are going to provide detailed descriptions of the entire network of issues that lay out the blueprints for the problems we are dealing with. We need all layers.

And yes she should be factual if she is going to utter words out of her mouth.



I don't view all spokespeople as leaders, in fact not very many are. They are usually just celebrities of a trending issue providing the ability for that issue to become more known amongst mainstream society. Some are smart, some are not so... each has there own place and its not always quality.

In the age of mass communication, information that challenges the status quo is not blacklisted, it is relabeled. "Conspiracy theory" is just such a label.


People who have not matured into independent adults have a strong psychological need for projected parent figures, such as leaders and.. celebrities.