#40 Constraining the psychedelic mind with ritual and cultural contexts
When it comes to discussing the ritualization of such unconstrained mental experiences, there are so many variables at play.
When it comes to discussing the ritualization of such unconstrained mental experiences, there are so many variables at play.
I’ve been interested in the difference, or rather the nuance, between Varela’s neurophenomenology and Gallagher’s front-loaded phenomenology for some time.
What level of phenomenological training do neurophenomenological researchers expect their participants to have to be able to describe lived experiences?
Does a person’s subjective experiences, filtered through cultural upbringing, have a direct impact on his/her neurophysiology and thus neurophenomenology?
Future of psychedelic entity research entails first and foremost, phenomenological analysis, and secondly, neurophenomenological analysis (in the same vein as Varela’s use of the term).
Is there a solution to finding a standard, predictable, and repeatable set of phenomenological themes and categories across research studies going forward?
What strikes me about Lutz et al’s (2002) findings is that “dynamical neural signatures” match and even predict subjects’ mental states.
How to graft subjective experiences onto physiological tests? How to use subjective data to look for correlative markers in physiological data?
We should inject more qualitative methods into the quantitative sciences in order to perform any kind of non-reductionist scientific inquiry.
What interests me are people’s expectations of psychedelic experiences or lack thereof prior to ingestion.