I don’t know that I find that more useful. I think his criticism is well justified, but too long to exposit on here. I think the trouble with equating mysticism with contemplative practice is that the contemplative is just one type of mysticism (in the fashion of Underhill’s study).

Ah - I think I might have read at one point. Thanks. Either way I’d argue that some normative understanding is going to have to (prescriptive) be involved eg rules or laws that adequately describe drugs. Something I don’t think deconstruction is particularly helpful with IMO.

I dunno man, I think there’s plenty of room for alternative interpretations, even ones that aim at some universality. And to be honest, I don’t think Plato’s pharmacy (which I guess you’re referencing) provides much of an analysis of drugs, either historically, or pragmatically. My 2 cents.

Cool - thanks!

Couldn’t track down the citation. My memory looks incorrect. Instead I think it was in Gregory Bateson: Bateson, G. (1971). The cybernetics of “self”: A theory of alcoholism. Psychiatry, 34(1), 1-18. It’s reprinted in his book Steps to and Ecology of Mind.

I think I recognize that hill.