I’ve been reading, recently, about the experiments with the drug mescalin Aldous Huxley performed in the 1950’s. He determined that the drug will ‘open the door’ of one’s perceptions, allow one to pass through the wall of harsh reality and for most everyone with proper introduction and guidance, will produce expanding insights, an increasing ability to see more deeply and observe the world ego-free. Being able to embrace the ‘isness’ of our visible world, the stuff of experience that has by survival instinct been reduced to labeled objects, would make everything we see more significant as the drug inhibits self-consciousness.

There are caveats. A sound, stable mind grounded and free of anxiety is essential. AH points out the drug may induce schizophrenic response, scare the user into interpreting his surroundings as cosmic malevolence, begin viewing experiences as conspiratorial, as a plot to destroy him.

Which has me thinking about the alternative realities so prevalent in the public sphere these days. How so many of us have caved to conspiratorial narratives, have fallen into the dark world of the ‘deep state’ even without experiencing the negative effects of a mind-altering drug.

Even so, it seems to me cracking open some of those ‘doors’, gain at least a glimpse beyond our limiting realities would gain us a worthwhile perspective. Maybe, if one really tried one could will the expansion without the drug.

I’ve been trying to understand the fluctuations in the world order these days with populist movements arising around the world ushering in strongman politicians, spinning narratives of restorative nostalgia, remembrance of times past when everything was better than it now is despite the relative affluence most of us realize.

There are always, I suppose, folks of ambition but mediocre talent who don’t achieve desired advancement, who might seek a less competitive structure than the socio-economic system that promotes the best and most able and insures the system functions as effectively as possible. And then there are those of modest ambition who may fear disenfranchisement and the disfavor of the strongman who climb on the bandwagon.

The problem is that the strongman, assuming free reign, may begin to make up his own rules, begin suppressing opposition, placing restrictions on access to information until there’s only one narrative. And, with only one narrative truth can be stretched, people demonized, scapegoats created to be blamed when things go awry.

Better I think to have a sometimes messy and chaotic pluralism where everyone has a say even if considerable energy may be required in public debate.