> To better understand why, in McKenna’s view, psychedelics are illegal, it may be helpful to examine why the world today operates on a dominator instead of a partnership model, and what exactly these terms mean.
What?? No! That won't be helpful at all!
Why not start with the discourse at the time they were banned. What was said? Should we take it at face value? Did the illegality emerge once and spread, or did it "evolve" separately, in lots of different places?
Plenty of policy gets passed due to specific, contingent circumstances right at that moment. It often comes down to the judgment of a few people thinking on a very short time-horizon.
Before reaching for some sort of grand dialectic theory, we should at least find out whether the "reasons" aren't wholly contingent. What if we just got stuck with this policy because of some specific set of circumstances, and we still have it due to sheer inertia?
What?? No! That won't be helpful at all!
Why not start with the discourse at the time they were banned. What was said? Should we take it at face value? Did the illegality emerge once and spread, or did it "evolve" separately, in lots of different places?
Plenty of policy gets passed due to specific, contingent circumstances right at that moment. It often comes down to the judgment of a few people thinking on a very short time-horizon.
Before reaching for some sort of grand dialectic theory, we should at least find out whether the "reasons" aren't wholly contingent. What if we just got stuck with this policy because of some specific set of circumstances, and we still have it due to sheer inertia?