I appreciate the effort you've put in to "refute" me, but I do not think that you've actually put much thought into it.
I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.
I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.
I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.
>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?
I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.
I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.
I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.
>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?