glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) (03/11/88)
In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: >As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the >wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications, >the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate, >etc.). Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems >at hand with undiluted vigor. Such problems as AIDS, world hunger, >diminishing energy resources, and fundamental inhumanity of man toward one >another, will not be solved by the Uri Gellers of the world, or by >consulting the "predictions" of a Jean Dixon. They will be solved by the >application of the sciences (both hard and soft) to these problems. The >more energy is diverted into bogus "sciences" the longer it will take to >solve these problems. While I agree that the future will not be based on wishfull thinking, I would be careful about automatically labelling everything that does not fit into the conventional model pseudoscience. There is a pretty good chance that new ways of thinking will revolutionize our world view in the near future. I say this because lately physicists are beginning to sound like they did at the end of the last century, just before clasical physics was stood on its head. Quantum mechanics works so well (at least where it does work), and people are saying, "in a few years we will have a complete unified theory." Just like last time, the "clasical" theory is very powerful and compelling but there are a couple of pieces of evidence that could unravel the whole thing, start a whole new ball game. Einstien disliked the uncertainty priciple so much that he kept trying to push it to the limits of absurdity. The amazing thing is that the results just kept getting more absurd, rather than finding anything inconsistent with quantum mechanics. I'm not a physicist, so I can't adaquatly bring these arguments to their conclusion but consider: The ERP paradox (Einstien, etc. I don't remember the other names, but it is the one about two particles originating from the same original particle, so they are constrained to have opposite spins, and therefore measuring one means the other must instantaniously have the correct spin.) Bell's inequality, which implies: Quantum mechanics fails and/or Objectivity fails and/or Locality fails Any one of these failing may mean the world is a lot stranger than originally thought. There are holes that can cover almost any of the popular pseudosciences. This is not proof, but it opens the door, and real experiments will eventually tell us something about what is going on. I was reading about this stuff in Robert Anton Wilson's _Cosmic_Triggers_. Admittedly, he is not a "hard" scientist, and in this book he asks the reader to consider the possibility of a number of things that are pretty strange, but there is also growing evidence that there is no such thing as an "objective" investigator, and he even suggests that we try on different world views from time to time. If we do not we risk being trapped in a dogmatic stance that makes further investigation impossible. Wilson says in his preface, "I don't believe in anything." He says this in response to letters he received after the first edition of the book from people asking him if what he wrote was "true" or whether he believed it. Beliefs effectively block the possibility of learning anything new. What is my point? Only that a lot of what gets passed off as science is nothing but conventional dogma. When Timothy Leary was experimenting with using psychedelic drugs in therapy and mind research he ran afoul of conventional dogma. It didn't matter that in his work with prisoners, 85-90% of those he worked with stayed out of jail after being released compared to the normal statistics where that number are soon back in jail. According to the standard model, his experiments should have been repeated and either verified, or refuted. Instead conventional wisdom says these drugs are dangerous, and cannot be used by anyone, not even a scientific investigator, and everyone thinks Leary is nothing but a drugged out crackpot. So, I ask you, what is reality, and who defines it? Gerry Gleason
jesup@pawl14.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (03/12/88)
In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP> glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xt1112-G.Gleason) writes: >Bell's inequality, which implies: ... >Any one of these failing may mean the world is a lot stranger than >originally thought. There are holes that can cover almost any of >the popular pseudosciences. This is not proof, but it opens the >door, and real experiments will eventually tell us something about >what is going on. So quantum works. Is that really such a stunner? Does that mean that Uri Geller, whats-her-name the 'channeler', UFO groupies, etc are any more believable than before? How many of these are going to do 'real experiments'? The medicine men, faith healers, cultists, con artists, etc have always been with us, and probably always will, because so many people have a true need to believe in things, to be able to give up responsibility or to have dreams of something outside their routine day-to-day lives. Look how many people will buy things like "100+MPG carburetors" for their 10 MPG gas-guzzler, believing it will work. Or read horoscopes in the paper and believe them religously (note the term used, it gives an idea what's going on). Occaisionaly, people who have good ideas are riduculed by 'authorities' who don't understand them, or haven't seen proof, etc. My own great-great- great-grandfather was known as 'mad man henson' because he thought a heavier than air vehicle could be built (he was wrong, it's real hard (or impossible) to do with 1840's or 50's steam engines for power). But his aerodynamics and lift were better than the Wrights. Later, after moving from england to the US, the department of the navy sent him a letter saying that breech loading cannon were impossible. (The smithsonian has the documents now). But these more often occur with engineering than with science, as new machines and materials are perfected. In science, theories can usually be tested against reality. Most psuedoscientists stay carefully away from tests and hard predictions, relying on generalities, claiming coverups, theatrics, and just plain ignoring things like objective proof. Those that really do believe in their ideas either find them fall short, or find them to be provably true. Those that are true become 'science' (assuming they publish the fact). // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (03/14/88)
In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: > > So, I ask you, what is reality, and who defines it? > > Gerry Gleason I *think* it was Robert Anton Wilson who wrote that the two most carefully obfuscated matters around are where does money come from and where does the local definition of sanity (i.e., reality) come from. But he seems a little paranoid, so even if he doesn't give answers, I think I'll ignore the questions. Yeah, that's it! I'll ignore them. Yeah. Cheers, Edk
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (03/15/88)
In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: (in a very well stated posting) | In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: | |As to the futurism aspect, I feel that the future will NOT be based on the | |wishful thinking embodied in the pseudosciences (telepathic communications, | |the world saved by noble UFO pilots, ones future foretold by ones birthdate, | |etc.). Rather, the future depends on applying our knowledge to the problems | |at hand with undiluted vigor. | | While I agree that the future will not be based on wishfull thinking, I | would be careful about automatically labelling everything that does not | fit into the conventional model pseudoscience. I agree. There are various levels of acceptance of scientific theories. The case of the plate tectonics theory leaps to mind as a non-conventional theory at the time it was devised which later became part of the conventional view. | Just like last time, the "clasical" theory is very powerful and compelling | but there are a couple of pieces of evidence that could unravel the whole | thing, start a whole new ball game. Einstien disliked the uncertainty | priciple so much that he kept trying to push it to the limits of absurdity. | The amazing thing is that the results just kept getting more absurd, | rather than finding anything inconsistent with quantum mechanics. | | I'm not a physicist, so I can't adaquatly bring these arguments to their | conclusion but consider: | | The ERP paradox (Einstien, etc. I don't remember the other names, but | it is the one about two particles originating from the same | original particle, so they are constrained to have opposite | spins, and therefore measuring one means the other must | instantaniously have the correct spin.) | | Bell's inequality, which implies: | Quantum mechanics fails | and/or Objectivity fails | and/or Locality fails | | Any one of these failing may mean the world is a lot stranger than | originally thought. There are holes that can cover almost any of | the popular pseudosciences. This is not proof, but it opens the | door, and real experiments will eventually tell us something about | what is going on. I agree with you that, as we learn more of the makeup of the universe, we learn how strange it really is. This is the normal pursuit of science, seeking explanations for the as-yet-unexplained. | What is my point? Only that a lot of what gets passed off as science | is nothing but conventional dogma. No. What is passed off as science is the "currently accepted" view of the universe, as derived from theory and experiment, and filtered through human frailty. It is very hard for me to accept the word "dogma" applied to science. To me dogma implies belief despite contrary evidence. While an individual scientist may be dogmatic in believing his/her own pet theory, Science as a whole tends to move in the directions indicated by evidence. This is NOT to say that the movement is rapid, or that Truth is accepted as self evident. Rather, it just says that the weight of evidence will eventually overwhelm resistance. | When Timothy Leary was experimenting ... I am not very knowledgeable about Leary's work, so I cannot comment on it in clear conscience, but I can, perhaps, present a different view of some of the conclusions you reach. | ... According to the standard model, his experiments should have | been repeated and either verified, or refuted. Agreed. I do not know if anyone did try to do so. | Instead conventional | wisdom says these drugs are dangerous, and cannot be used by anyone, | not even a scientific investigator, I am not sure that that is true. I have seen a number of articles dealing with legitimate research into very potent drugs (hallucinogens, barbiturates, etc.) for the treatment of a number of disorders. It IS recognized by the researchers that the drugs are dangerous and must be handled carefully. It IS NOT the view that NO-ONE can work with them. | and everyone thinks Leary is nothing | but a drugged out crackpot. Certainly "everyone" loses respect for someone who becomes addicted to the drugs he is researching, especially when "everyone" knows how dangerous they are to the well-being and sanity of the drug user. If the researcher becomes this intimately involved with his work, then the rest of the world is justified in viewing the results of that work with some skepticism. Is Leary a "drugged out crackpot?" I do not know, but I do view his pronouncements much more skeptically than I would if he did not partake of his own medicine. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) (03/20/88)
In article <2762@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: >In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes: >(in a very well stated posting) >| In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: >| What is my point? Only that a lot of what gets passed off as science >| is nothing but conventional dogma. >No. What is passed off as science is the "currently accepted" view of >the universe, as derived from theory and experiment, and filtered >through human frailty. It is very hard for me to accept the word >"dogma" applied to science. To me dogma implies belief despite >contrary evidence. While an individual scientist may be dogmatic in >believing his/her own pet theory, Science as a whole tends to move in >the directions indicated by evidence. This is NOT to say that the >movement is rapid, or that Truth is accepted as self evident. Rather, >it just says that the weight of evidence will eventually overwhelm >resistance. Exactly my point, there is too much reliance on a "currently accepted" view, which in effect slows down scientific investigations. Too many people just referencing other works for authority, that it often takes decades for some errors to stop resurfacing after being retracted. What I am saying is that the "currently accepted" theory is so well taught that few "scientists" are creative enough to discover something completely new, or self-confident enough to believe they could possibly discover anything truely revolutionary. We need to train our minds to be more flexible, creative, etc. >| When Timothy Leary was experimenting ... >I am not very knowledgeable about Leary's work, so I cannot comment on >it in clear conscience, but I can, perhaps, present a different view of >some of the conclusions you reach. Perhaps it would be better not to comment if you are not knowledgeable. >| ... According to the standard model, his experiments should have >| been repeated and either verified, or refuted. >Agreed. I do not know if anyone did try to do so. >| Instead conventional >| wisdom says these drugs are dangerous, and cannot be used by anyone, >| not even a scientific investigator, >I am not sure that that is true. I have seen a number of articles >dealing with legitimate research into very potent drugs (hallucinogens, >barbiturates, etc.) for the treatment of a number of disorders. It IS >recognized by the researchers that the drugs are dangerous and must be >handled carefully. It IS NOT the view that NO-ONE can work with them. I would not base an oppinion on a few articles. I sure you are aware that there is a lot of dis-information out on the topic of drugs, so a deeper investigation is warranted. >| and everyone thinks Leary is nothing >| but a drugged out crackpot. >Certainly "everyone" loses respect for someone who becomes addicted to >the drugs he is researching, especially when "everyone" knows how >dangerous they are to the well-being and sanity of the drug user. If >the researcher becomes this intimately involved with his work, then the >rest of the world is justified in viewing the results of that work with >some skepticism. Is Leary a "drugged out crackpot?" I do not know, >but I do view his pronouncements much more skeptically than I would if >he did not partake of his own medicine. You provide a perfect example of what I am talking about. You don't know anything about the facts, and you're calling someone you don't know anything about an addict. You're comment about what "everyone" knows is in the same catagory. Leary report's zero "bad" trips because of a positive set and setting, and that everyone was participating because they wanted to. There is a history of scientists trying things out on themselves. In this case it is probably a good idea for the researcher to have some experience with the brain states he plans to induce it others. Gerry Gleason
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (03/22/88)
Timothy Leary did some interesting work on personality and behavior, building on the foundations of Jung and Sullivan. He has now begun to popularize this work through the medium of the personal computer. In collaboration with Electronic Arts, he has produced the Mind Mirror, which provides an entertaining and informative introduction to personality mapping. Leary's credo is TFYQA -- Think for yourself, and question authority. He is as provocative and fresh as ever. Try the Mind Mirror, and meet your future self. --Barry Kort
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/23/88)
In article <27471@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) writes: > Timothy Leary did some interesting work on personality and behavior, You bet, and on screwing up people's lives too. > building on the foundations of Jung and Sullivan. And destroying the future of many people by advocating they use drugs. > He has now begun > to popularize this work through the medium of the personal computer. Anything to make a buck, why not a book as well?? > Leary's credo is TFYQA -- Take Five Years (worth) of Quaaludes Annually > He is as provocative and fresh as ever. Try the Mind Mirror, and > meet your future self. Yeah, I always wanted to meet my future self, defined by a binary stucture put together by a man who messed up a great deal of people by advocating they use such fantasticly healthy things like LSD-25. Good choice, if I had been here at school the night he was here to promote himself, I think I would have at least burned some of his books, just to make him mad, then I would have asked him to pay my cousin's rehab bill for the time he spent recovering from drug experimentation. (yes this was due to the environment that T.L. helped create in the '60's) Oh but you can't really tell adults what to do and what not to do, so Tim is off the hook right?
glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) (03/23/88)
In article <27471@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >Leary's credo is TFYQA -- Think for yourself, and question authority. >He is as provocative and fresh as ever. Try the Mind Mirror, and >meet your future self. 2 I havn't seen that accronym yet, but I like it, and also SMI LE, which stands for Space Migration, Increased Intellegence, and Life Extention, or something like that. I have heard of Mind Mirror, and would like to check it out. I know it's available for apples, but a friend of mine was having trouble finding it. Is it available for any other machines? Does anyone know where to order it? Gerry Gleason
jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (03/23/88)
In article <1290@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: >In article <27471@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) writes: >> Timothy Leary did some interesting work on personality and behavior, > [ some Leary-bashing deleted ] >> He has now begun >> to popularize this work through the medium of the personal computer. > >Anything to make a buck, why not a book as well?? Leary's drug phase in the 60's was not exactly an oportunistic career move. Quite the opposite, he sacrificed a promising career for something he believed in. The environment that T.L. helped create in the 60's was the opposite of "Anything to make a buck". That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create. > >> He is as provocative and fresh as ever. Try the Mind Mirror, and >> meet your future self. > >Yeah, I always wanted to meet my future self, defined by a binary stucture >put together by a man who messed up a great deal of people by advocating >they use such fantasticly healthy things like LSD-25. As I remember it, Leary explained to people that the "set and setting" were very important factors in an LSD-25 experience. He did not advocate taking LSD-25 for thrills. >Good choice, if I had been here at school the night he was here to promote >himself, I think I would have at least burned some of his books, just >to make him mad, then I would have asked him to pay my cousin's rehab bill >for the time he spent recovering from drug experimentation. >(yes this was due to the environment that T.L. helped create in the '60's) I doubt your cousin is recovering from LSD experimentation. In fact, I doubt he ever took it at all. Correct me if I'm wrong. T.L. never had much good to say about heroin or quaaludes or the drugs being abused today. LSD is not addictive. Nor has it the potential for profit making that todays street drugs have. >Oh but you can't really tell adults what to do and what not to do, so Tim >is off the hook right? I also must assume your cousin is not an adult, or, at least, that he bears no responsibility for his drug use in your eyes. This should probably be retitled and directed to different news groups. Anyone know which? (we don't get 'alt' groups here) -- The check is in the e-mail jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)
todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) (03/25/88)
In article <747@actnyc.UUCP>, jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: > In article <1290@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > Leary's drug phase in the 60's was not exactly an oportunistic career move. > Quite the opposite, he sacrificed a promising career for something he believed > in. Counter-cultural crap?? How about if I believe in nuclear weapons, so I go out and build one, is that ok too?? > The environment that T.L. helped create in the 60's was the opposite of > "Anything to make a buck". It was opposite of anything period. If the "establishment" had an opinion, he had a counter opinion. > That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the > environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create. Now you would'nt be trying to imply I am a child of the '80's would you? You would be grossly mistaken. > As I remember it, Leary explained to people that the "set and setting" were > very important factors in an LSD-25 experience. He did not advocate taking > LSD-25 for thrills. But he did advocate taking it, and other things as well. > I doubt your cousin is recovering from LSD experimentation. In fact, I > doubt he ever took it at all. > Correct me if I'm wrong. Ok, you are wrong, he took LSD, and other things in his environment, trying to be like his older friends, who were into all sorts of crap. > T.L. never had much > good to say about heroin or quaaludes or the drugs being abused today. LSD > is not addictive. Nor has it the potential for profit making that todays > street drugs have. So this makes LSD irrelevant to the issue?? > I also must assume your cousin is not an adult, or, at least, that he bears > no responsibility for his drug use in your eyes. He bears responsibility, and so do his friends, as well as those who taught him that such poison is acceptable. You seem to not be real bothered by this idea. > This should probably be retitled and directed to different news groups. > Anyone know which? How about /dev/null, at least tim will be there. > (we don't get 'alt' groups here) Neither do we.
glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) (03/27/88)
In article <747@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: >In article <1290@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: >>In article <27471@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) writes: >>> Timothy Leary did some interesting work on personality and behavior, >> [ some Leary-bashing deleted ] I guess I should have expected exactly this kind of attack from someone who obviously knows nothing about the subject matter. I hesitated to even mention his name for exactly this reason, but this only reinforces the point I was making by bringing his name up. Because he is infamous, for whatever reason, most people automatically discount what he has to say without even examining the ideas. Some are willing to post this kind of trash as if they had the confidence that "everybody knows" X is a nut, drug addict, or whatever, and therefore anything he says is not worth considering. Why don't you try thinking for yourself next time. >>> He has now begun >>> to popularize this work through the medium of the personal computer. >>Anything to make a buck, why not a book as well?? >Leary's drug phase in the 60's was not exactly an oportunistic career move. >Quite the opposite, he sacrificed a promising career for something he believed >in. The environment that T.L. helped create in the 60's was the opposite of >"Anything to make a buck". That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the >environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create. In view of the ultimate consequences of his drug "activism," it clearly was not oportunistic. I wonder what, if anything, he would do differently with the bennefit of hindsight. Most people do not realize that there was no hysteric atmosphere surounding "psychedelic" drugs when he began his work. At the time, he and many other researchers considered themselves to be doing legitimate research. The subsequent hysteria, prohibition, and infamy almost smells of a conspiracy, but why? >>> He is as provocative and fresh as ever. Try the Mind Mirror, and >>> meet your future self. >>Yeah, I always wanted to meet my future self, defined by a binary stucture >>put together by a man who messed up a great deal of people by advocating >>they use such fantasticly healthy things like LSD-25. >As I remember it, Leary explained to people that the "set and setting" were >very important factors in an LSD-25 experience. He did not advocate taking >LSD-25 for thrills. No, he did not. In fact, when asked about the use of drugs at later dates, he indicated that he was not interested in the drugs themselves. He always saw them as tools, not an end in themselves. >>Good choice, if I had been here at school the night he was here to promote >>himself, I think I would have at least burned some of his books, just >>to make him mad, then I would have asked him to pay my cousin's rehab bill >>for the time he spent recovering from drug experimentation. >>(yes this was due to the environment that T.L. helped create in the '60's) >I doubt your cousin is recovering from LSD experimentation. In fact, I >doubt he ever took it at all. Correct me if I'm wrong. T.L. never had much >good to say about heroin or quaaludes or the drugs being abused today. LSD >is not addictive. Nor has it the potential for profit making that todays >street drugs have. This is hard to say, from my reading of his autobiography, _Flashbacks_, it is possible that many so-called "bad-trips" were the result of negative "set" produced by the drug hysteria itself. He reports zero "bad-trips" as a result of their work with controlled set and setting. Also, its not a particularly good idea to "play" with this type of thing, a little like practicing psycotherapy without any training, there is potential for damage as with any improperly used tool. As to other drugs, you are correct. In the book he recounts a brief experimentation with heroin, and basically says that it is not useful as a "mind-tool." I use the word "experimentation" correctly, in the research sense. Leary among others takes the view that the researcher must have first hand experience with his tools to understand what is being produced (especially when subjective experience is involved). This carries with it the ethic that you should not use treatments that you would not be willing to apply to yourself. I don't think there would be as many inhumane treatments such as electro-shock therapy, etc. if more scientists practiced this ethic. >This should probably be retitled and directed to different news groups. >Anyone know which? (we don't get 'alt' groups here) Maybe, but it does continue the thread that originally started it. Only the Leary-bashing took the discussion off on this tangent. If people refrain from this type of thing, I don't see a reason to move it. Gerry Gleason
lae@pedsga.UUCP (03/30/88)
In article <1295@uop.edu> todd@uop.UUCP writes: > >Counter-cultural crap?? How about if I believe in nuclear weapons, >so I go out and build one, is that ok too?? > >> That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the >> environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create. > >Now you would'nt be trying to imply I am a child of the '80's would you? >You would be grossly mistaken. > >Ok, you are wrong, he took LSD, and other things in his environment, >trying to be like his older friends, who were into all sorts of crap. > >> I also must assume your cousin is not an adult, or, at least, that he bears >> no responsibility for his drug use in your eyes. > >He bears responsibility, and so do his friends, as well as those who >taught him that such poison is acceptable. You seem to not be real >bothered by this idea. > I walked into the middle of this exchange, so I hope this is relevant. Hey, I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. We've all lost somebody along the way. To drugs, to automobile accidents, to falls in the home, to illness, to old age. Sometimes to a living death among tubes and wires in a sterile, cold house full of strangers... Death is our ultimate destination, and there are many things to learn on the way. I chose LSD-25 to speed the learning process and I have never regretted the things I discovered about myself. Because LSD has always been a positive experience for me, I simply cannot comprehend your reference to it as "poison" except as a propagandistic metaphor. I think that this is why whoever-that-was stereotyped you as a child of the '80s: because the '80s is full of Nancy *Just Say No* Reagan and piss tests that get you fired if you take antihistamines. Your cousin, I'm sure, bore the responsibility for his decisions. He made the decisions that were right for him, and if they happened to destroy him, they were still his decisions. I have always noticed that certain personality types misuse any substance available, drive like maniacs, perhaps are accident prone. It bothers the heck out of me when I see someone I care about is bent on self-destruction. Their end doesn't bother me quite as much as the sudden tragedy-- the quiet one who buys it on the way to work one morning because someone else wasn't paying attention. The real question you must ask in making sense of it all is not "Why did his friends teach him that LSD is acceptable?" so much as it is "Why did he pick those people to be his friends instead of hanging around with the Young Republicans?" Good luck to you. -- ******************************************************************* * This space intentionally left blank. * *******************************************************************