By Fly Agaric 23.
It was 1957. I was very interested in jazz at that time, and I told a black friend about some of Korzybski's exercises to get to the non-verbal level, and he said, "Oh, I do that every time I smoke pot." I got interested. I said, "Could I buy one of these marijuana cigarettes from you?" He said, "Oh hell, I'll give it to you free." And so I smoked it. I found myself looking at a quarter I found in my pocket and realizing I hadn't looked at a quarter in twenty years or so, the way a child looks at a quarter. So I decided marijuana was doing pretty much the same thing Korzybski was trying to do with his training devices. Then shortly after that I heard a lecture by Alan Watts, and I realized that Zen, marijuana and Korzybski were all relating the same transformations of consciousness. That was the beginning.--Robert Anton Wilson, Interview, Positive Atheisim.
Once again, thinking about the Dutch Coffeeshop politics and double-crossed language and policy involved with the operations on all sides, i return back to the language. The language of Christian Parties and Conservative politicians has a lot in common at a base level, i notice that a general monotheistic mind set often leads to generally Aristotelian language and logic, severely limited and dogmatic when based upon two valued logic, or duality.
I am no linguist, but anybody with a sharp eye and ear for similarities will recognize the linguistic traps set by these people. And anybody who has looked at the war on some people who use some drugs will recognize the language of drug war, the lack of any consistent pluralistic logic, the nihilistic imagery, and the religious overtones of puritanical crusaders.
The solution to a part of the problem, as i view it, in Holland, consists of a more focused linguistic analysis of everything published by the anti-coffeeshop and anti-drug crusaders. If i can detect many meaningless statements, and bare faced lies, surely others who are looking to defend the case for coffeeshops can too? and so what is the strategy for addressing their wrong headed criticism? how do you engage in meaningful debate with the goal of a more scientific approach to processing information, based on a widely distributed array of current data? How to communicate with monotheistic Christian crusaders and their Aristotelian either/or world view of good/evil, god/devil right/left in/out for/against white/black etc.
This is my calling for anybody interested in helping the plight of Dutch coffeeshops, and in particular those in Amsterdam affected by the recent school rule. I implore you to take what you view to be the strongest parts of your opponents argument, and start with those. Begin to provide better versions of that argument, build it up to be as strong as you can make it. Then begin to tear it apart piece by piece, syllable by syllable, and show that there are further arguments against it.
"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."--Gandhi
I feel that the exercise of strengthening your opponents arguments will keep you on your toes, and with luck, combined with what i have said above, and what i will link to below, encourage you to obsolete any dualistic argument with a superior, intelligent, and fair (fairer) model of the information, a pluralistic presentation of just some, of the vast array of information on the subject, in this case arguments for and against cannabis coffeeshops in Holland.
Next, when you have terse and meaningful paragraphs that describe the situation as it is, according to your own nervous system, and the information fields you have created--hopefully based on sourced documents including timebinded 'quotes' and other 'exhibits'--start to rewrite those paragraphs.
Rewrite those paragraphs in as many different styles as you can think of. As a comedian, a classical historian, a typically shallow news broadcaster, a scene from your favourite T.V series or movie, a song lyric, a limerick, a Haiku, an entire short story, a mathematical equation, a picture!
If you are still with me, you catch my drift. What we need to do is turn the process of art and poetry and spontaneous creativity into something that can address directly, the terrible ills and trickery at work in our surrounding environment, wherever that may be. Together we can break the spell, and as i said, obsolete the corrupt medieval arguments with superior scientific 21st century solutions.
Singing matter, shouting matter, dancing matter, these are the tale of the tribe. Write, paint, dance, sing, make merry with the knowledge that your research methodology is light years ahead of the opposition, and so anytime spent fighting the opposition is time spent in the past, an important consideration. There are ways to include both history and 'the long poem' together, these are the methods of study i recommend. Break on through and make it new.
“The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have my demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share the same crusading zeal and the same lack of humor, charity and common human decency. These intolerable cults have served to confirm me in my agnosticism by presenting further evidence to support my contention that when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."--Robert Anton Wilson.
--Fly Agaric 23