the imagination on psychedelics

What is happening when we imagine? What processes are taking place? And what, if anything, do these processes reveal about the origin of imaginal content? Could it be that when we imagine, objects that had never before existed are ‘brought into being’ by the mind, assembled from the raw materials of ordinary sense perception?

Dozens of psychedelic states of consciousness have precluded me from taking this possibility seriously. Some of the places and ideas presented under the influence of DMT, for instance, have been so extraordinarily rich and complex as to make such an account of their origin laughable. I realize that this does not constitute a refutation; one does not refute a possibility by laughing at it. But the ultimate origin of imaginal content- indeed the ultimate origin of anything- is for a priori consideration, not for empirical investigation, and as such will remain speculative. I hope that my chemically induced dissatisfaction with the above hypotheses gives me adequate license to explore a more likely story.

Here is a possibility that, as Terence Mckenna quipped, ‘is worth entertaining- not necessarily because it’s the truth, but because it is entertaining’: that of the imagination as an organ of perception. The suggestion is that the imagination is a passive faculty with unmediated access to a platonic superspace- an actual world that is fully populated with existent objects. The imagination is the capacity to “peer into” this superspace; it is thus an organ of perception. Rather than generate its content, the imagination discovers it, in the same way that our sense organs discover the phenomena described by physics.

For the loose-headed like me, this is candy. And as an added bonus, there is some fascinating evidence from fMRI studies with psilocybin that, despite the common assumption that hallucinations are produced by stimulating brain activity, the most intense subjective experiences are associated with decreased brain activity. Whatever this amounts to, these findings should be especially interesting to those who are seduced by Aldous Huxley’s metaphor for the mind as a receiver or limiter of consciousness; for a better understanding of Huxley’s hypothesis, I quote from pages 10 and 11 of his book The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell (2004 edition):

“The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of … perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed … by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful.”

The data presented in altered states of consciousness, or in any state of consciousness for that matter, cannot reveal anything definite about matters of ontology. They can, however, lend more or less plausibility to competing hypotheses. To my mind, the ‘imagination as organ of perception’ hypothesis is made more plausible than the ‘imagination as consciousness-generating’ hypothesis due to the overwhelmingly rich and complex nature of the data presented in the psychedelic experience. I realize that this conviction is driven by feeling rather than by logical probability, and as such is not very different in kind from religious conviction. But I suspect that at bottom, all strong convictions are this way; they originate as revelation, and are only later found to be sound or unsound in the light of empirical evidence or reasoning. When I am confronted by some of the data in the psychedelic experience, I haven’t much more to say than that if anything is real, this is it.

Our mostly unsystematic experimentation with psychedelics can give rise to unexpected and, at times, profoundly disturbing phenomena. While the extraordinary character of these phenomena itself doesn’t reveal anything novel about the ultimate nature of things, I think it ‘raises the stakes’ by adding a certain urgency to the contemplation of ancient questions.

What are your thoughts on this? Could the psychedelic experience shed any light on the origin of imaginal content?



1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “the imagination on psychedelics

  1. Grace Gesualdi

    I agree that data presented in altered and unaltered states of consciousness reveal nothing definite about matters of ontology. That being said, it seems more likely that imaginal content is discovered, rather than generated, by means of the “organ” of the imagination. That the imagination is a capacity to experience what lives in the realm of ideas, the astral world, other dimensions or what have you, seems a “more likely story,” than that of the imagination as a solely generative process. Briefly, I’d like to make clear how it is I am using the term imagination. When we speak of imagination, there is a distinction to be made between the imagination functioning in and of itself, and the imagination functioning in conjunction with other parts of the brain, body and being, that results in creativity: a completely generative process, the manifestation of our imaginings into the material world. I’d like to put creativity aside here, as I assume that we mean to handle it separately from the matter of imaginal content, of which the ontological origin is under discussion.

    When it comes to the question, “could the psychedelic experience shed any light on the origin of imaginal content?” I think that it can. Indeed the psychedelic experience provides us with extremely intricate, elaborate and unconventional imaginings. But while we might, under the influence of psychedelics, imagine things we never imagined before, I think it is the manner in which the content is presented to us, in addition to, and perhaps even more so, than the nature of the content itself, which buttresses the hypothesis that imaginal content is a result of the process of discovery, rather than generated by the subject under the influence. Data presents itself to the mind, which acts as a passenger on the so-called journey through the psychedelic experience. I would not go so far as to say that in these psychedelic states, we have no control over what we think, believe or imagine. What I am saying is that the imaginal content is already there (preexists) for us to witness, ponder and use, and that it comes to the surface in a more exaggerated and sensational way under the sway psychedelic drugs.
    While the same process is taking place during unaltered states of consciousness, the differentiation between the imagination and the data that is presented to it is hyperbolically enhanced during states of altered consciousness let on by psychedelics. However, should it be the case that imaginal content is existentially distinct from the imagination, this does not mean that it’s origin is for priori consideration. In other words, the data presented to us by the imagination is still the stuff of the mind, and is subject to empirical investigation. The nature of imaginal content is that it is seen by the imagination—regardless of whether it is discovered or generated—and only can be known through experience. But this might be a separate question that is for another time, of which I hope will be soon!

    P.s. Victor, your blog is amazing! Keep posting!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s