This wiki is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

11/10/2007 7:33 PM

Nugan:

An excellent summary and several hypotheses in response to my emailed questions. Now, you have gathered a tiny archive devoted to a character - Abramson - and a path of scientific research. Once you have establish this sort of framework - and it can be in various states of order and disorder, from information dump to polished paragraph - one can begin to experiment on and with it by assuming drastically different perspectives on it. First, try an extreme close up on Abramson's text, as in the effect of LSD on arithmetic testing. Ponder the immense historicity separating us from any era that would think it even necessary to ask the question. Then, put this research into the context of the literature on creative problem solving Can you reconcile these two vastly different views of the effects of the compound on human cognition? Enjoy - mobius

[Thanks mobius! I appreciate your feedback. I'll go through the creative problem solving reading and try to come up with some responses to your questions, then I'll write up another wiki entry.]

I'm planning to write my paper project on the relationship between the practice and study of psychology and the society of control. Knowing that this was a very broad topic, I spoke to mobius and he sent me an email with a link to a number of scientific articles by Harold Abramson detailing his, sometimes CIA-funded, psychological experiments with LSD and several research questions to answer. I've quoted the email below.

My simple ( though not easily answered) research question would be: What was LSD as a scientific object for Abramson? Some sub questions that might help you begin: Under what conditions could LSD be known, assayed, understood, focused by Abramson? How do the different publication outlets of this archive reflect different research paths for Abramson over his career? Why does he publish in a journal devoted to Asthma by the end of his career? Whaty were the conditions surrounding the study of LSD in children? Can we tell a story about the history of psychology that treats Abramson as a main character, besides two or three others? If so, how does this story reinforce, undermine or otherwise impact a scholarly view of psychology's role in the Cold War Security State?

After reading several of the Abramson articles, I think I'm prepared to offer preliminary answers to these questions, although I'm sure my thoughts will change as the project evolves. I'm going to answer the sub-questions first, then move on to the larger question.

Under what conditions could LSD be known, assayed, understood, focused by Abramson?

It seems that Abramson had three primary methods for studying, understanding, and using LSD in his experiments. First, early in his research, he did studies with various Betta fish, snails, rats and crustacians, which consisted of administering LSD to the animals, then observing their responses. These experiments seem to have been attempts to gain basic information about the effects of LSD on various animals and comparative studies measuring the effects of LSD against other drugs with similar chemical compositions. Second, Abramson did a number of group studies in which he administered varying doses of LSD and/or a placebo to groups, then administered standardized psychological tests the Rorshach, the house-tree-person test, intellegence tests, tests in arithmetic ability, tests in concentration, tests in balance, etc.) to the members of the group while they were experiencing the effects of the drug and recorded the results. Finally, Abramson used LSD, along with psychotherapy, as a treatment for individuals with various psychological conditions, ranging from sexual anxiety to autism and schizophrenia.

How do the different publication outlets of this archive reflect different research paths for Abramson over his career? Why does he publish in a journal devoted to Asthma by the end of his career?

Most of Abramson's early studies, conducted during the mid-50s, were published in the Journal of Psychology, while his final articles, produced during the 70s, are primarily published in the Journal of Asthma Research. (Although he did publish an article in the Journal of Psychology as late as 1973.)

Two possible explanations for this shift in publication outlets have occured to me:

1) This may be a result of the increasing hostility to LSD and LSD-testing as it became less an object of scientific and covert government interest and more an object of public scorn as part of the backlash to the counter-culture/anti-war movements. If Abramson was writing on a subject that had become publically condemned, it may have been more difficult for him to publish in more established journals, like the Journal of Psychology, and he may have been driven to alternative outlets, like the Journal of Asthma Research. Interestingly, none of the articles he published in the Journal of Asthma Research, or at least none of those in the list I received, dealt with the study of Asthma.

2) The shift in choice of publications may also have reflected an ideological/professional shift in Abramson, away from standardized group studies and towards therapeutic uses of LSD. If Abramson began in using LSD primarily in therapy rather than studying its effects in a systematic, quantitative manner, then it makes sense that he should publish in a medical/therapeutic journal like the Journal of Asthma Research, rather than the Journal of Psychology.

(mobius also suggested that a large amount funding was available for the study of asthma at the time. Thus, Abramson may also of shifted his focus for financial reasons, particularly since he was no longer receiving research funding from the CIA by this time.)

What were the conditions surrouning the study of LSD in children?

These studies were performed by providing autistic children with doses of LSD and observing the results in a clinical setting. The children showed considerably imptovement in their interpersonal skills and awareness, and those children who were prone to violent or emotionally unstable behavior showed noticable declines in these behaviors. These studies occured near the end of Abramson's career, and may be part of the possible shift towards therapeutic uses of LSD in Abramson's research focus.

Can we tell a story about the history of psychology that treats Abramson as a main character, besides two or three others? If so, how does this story reinforce, undermine or otherwise impact a scholarly view of psychology's role in the Cold War Security State?

I don't feel that I'm fully prepared to answer these questions yet, but here is some idle speculation:

- Certainly the fact that Abramson's early research into the effects of LSD was CIA funded and the Cold War paranoia that motivated this funding indicate an interconnection between Abramson and the Cold War Security State. That said, I think it's difficult to see Abramson's research as simply a negative symptom of society's desire for security and control, concidering his attempts to use LSD to further psychoanalytic therapy. (This point obviously is very vague and requires more thought.)

- Abramson's standardized group assesments are very much a function of the control society's need to categorize, order, and manipulate scientific information. Although these experiments offer very little information that would be applicable to therapy or which offers any profound insight into the effects or uses of LSD, they do offer data produced through controled situations that conform to general scientific standards.

- I'm not sure if it would be possible to view Abramson as a main character in psychology. Perhaps he could be categorized as a near main character, deprived of legendary status more by the outlawing of LSD and the arrival of the War on Drugs than by any illegitimacy of his discoveries. It seems as if LSD had (and has) legitimate potential in psychotherapy and perhaps may even provide a valuable form of treatment for autism. If LSD had not fallen out of favor because of legislation and paranoia, it is possible that Abramson could be popularly viewed as a great innovator in psychology.

Now, to return to the larger question:

What was LSD as a scientific object for Abramson?

It seems like LSD was several things to Abramson. Under the support the of CIA and the ideology of the control society it was a source of funding, an object of scientific scruitiny, a potential brainwashing agent, and the centerpiece of a series of unilluminating but rigorously controlled experiments. But Abramson also used LSD as an treatment method, an adjunct to psychotherapy, and a possible source of escape from confined existence for children suffering from autism.

That's pretty much all I have for now. I've been given additional readings and I haven't finished reviewing all of Abramson's research, so I made add to or modify my thoughts as the project progresses.

11/8/2007 12:43 PM

Although I was totally captivated by Wilson's Cosmic Trigger, I feel as if I already shared most of my preliminary thoughts about the book during our last seminar, so I think that I will use this entry to discuss my lingering feelings about the \"Don't Tase Me Bro\" video.

Although the tasing itself disturbed me, it's Meyer's shouted questions--"Are you arresting me? Why are you arresting me?"--that really continue to haunt me. I guess it's easy enough to come up with answers to these questions that can be quickly digested, regardless of your position on the pro-tasing/anti-tasing spectrum. Those who support the tasing might argue that Meyer was an obnoxious prankster, creating a nuisance at a public event, who was, in fact, (*ahem*) on privately owned property, and was thus tresspassing when he resisted attempts by campus security to remove him from the auditorium. Those who oppose tasing can easily see this as *yawn* Yet Another Reason Why The System Is Fucked, more evidence of the death of free speech, etc. etc. I think normally I would be in the latter category, responding with a \"So It Goes\" apathy, shrugging sadly, and then allowing my thoughts to drift elsewhere. But the visceral impact of Meyer's panicked questions refuses to simply dissipate or to be exampled as another symptom of a problem that I already understand too well.

I'm not sure if I want to theorize or speculate about the larger implications of the video. Meyer's screams communicate that more effectively than I could, and I feel like my hollow questions--Why are universities private property anyway? Why do most people seem to believe that their political choices are limited to Skulls on one side and Bones on the other? Why do we seem to feel that irony and depressed apathy are the only responses to this incident that would not feel either deluded or niave?--are trite compared to "Why are you arresting me?!"

11/1/2007 2:51 PM

While reading Stross' \"The Panopticon Singularity,\" I was disturbed by the number of possible technologies that are developing for surveillance purposes, but I think that Stross' dire conclusion that these technologies will make "universal enforcement" possible. Although these technoligies will certainly provide a greater range of surveillance techniques and undoubtably allow enforcement in areas that were previously difficult or impossible, but it seems that Stross overlooks the ingenuity, capacity for innovation, and the limitations of information processing, wich we've discussed in class, that are likely to work against hopes of universal enforement. Like the proliferation of counter-dialogue following reports that attempt to debunk UFO phenominom that mobiyus mentioned, it seems that these new surveillance technologies would encourage the production of new methods for avoiding, subverting, and displacing surveillance.

11/1/2007 12:15 AM

Thursday's class was the second time that I watched A Scanner Darkly, and it may me realize just how much the film demands multiple viewings. I spent most of my first viewing of the film alternating between being totally bewildered by the plot and amused by the hilarious dialogue and Robert Downey Jr.'s perfect portrayal of Barris. During this viewing, while I was just as entertained by the dialogue and characters as before, I was already aware of most of the plot machinations, so I did not feel so hopelessly lost and was able to spend more time appreciating details that I originally overlooked.

For example, the film seems to have religious themes that I missed during my first viewing. Arctor's internal monologue in which he wonders whether there is some higher observer who sees his life with more clarity that he does during his disconnected, confused self-observations seems to raise questions about the role of religion and spirituality within the society of control. Are individuals in a control society inclined to view God or divine powers as additional critical and judgmental observers, a spiritual extension of the imaged role of the security state, like the many-eyed monster that read Frick and endless list of his small sins and indiscretions? Or do spiritual forces become percieved as the one clear-eyed, honest source of observation, as Arctor seems to hope, even if he seems skeptical? It seems like the perception that one is always being observed and manipulated by governments, co-workers, and corporations, as Arctor is and as individuals living in a control society are lead to be believe that they may be, would have implications on the way that one views religion and spirituality.

I don't think that I found the film as depressing as others in the seminar seem to have. Yes, I agree that Arctor does seem to have lost most hope of self-determination and control over his own life through the manipulations of his governmental employees and the Substance D addiction scheme orcastrated by New Path, but it also seems that Arctor's final moment of understanding in the field, although arguably an extension of his employer's plans to use him to infiltrate New Path, seems to hint at some capacity for self-awareness to continue to exist amid all of the movie's schemesfor control and manipulation. And Arctor's decision to share the Substance D source flower that he found with his "friends," presumably the police, "at Thanksgiving," seems to underscore Dick's recurring theme of overcoming systems of control through human companionship that mobius mentioned during our discussion of Ubik. I don't think that the film was entirely hopeless.

10/18/2007 12:07 PM

LEAN OVER THE BOWL

AND THEN TAKE A DIVE.

ALL OF YOU ARE DEAD. I AM ALIVE.

A few random thoughts about Philip K. Dick's Ubik:

- While reading, I began to realize just how essential the desire for (or promise of) immortality is to the control society. It seems that the desire to extend life beyond its natural limits was the primary motivation driving Jory's desire to construct an illusory, self-controlled world within the half-life system, Runciter's desire to protect Joe Chip's conciousness and thus the longevity of his firm and legacy, and Joe's own struggle against Jory's attempts to consume him, in spite of his growing fraility and exhaustion. This seems to parrallel a similar instinct within the society of control to either construct power structures and institutions to create a sense of institutional immortality, or to foster illusory visions of actual personal immortality through the promises of intertwining scientific and medical progress with control society institutions and ideologies. This also seems like another aspect of the control society's perpetual, hopless struggle with ecological, biological, and sociological realities of decay.

- Who is the real stand-in for the control society in the novel? Is it Jory? Certainly Jory is primarily responsible for constructing the false, confining reality in the novel. He is also the novel's primary antagonist, suggesting that, if Dick was trying to critique the society of control, he would be the natural character to serve as an expression of this critique. However, Runciter, Ella, and Ella's Ubik spray also seem to be directly linked to facets of the control society in the novel. For example, Runciter primarily communicates with Joe and the others through devices of the control society: advertisements, police citations, product labels, currency, etc. Also, as mentioned above, Runciter's primary concern seems to be the maintainence of the institution that he has created, which clearly parrallels the desires of the control society. Perhaps both are manifestations of the control society. There certainly seems to be no point outside of the control society in the novel, particularly concidering its final chapter.

- Did anyone else think of Burroughsian de-scrambling while reading about Runciter's use of advertisements and other aspects of the media to convey his messages? The use of vague but leading media messages to motivate individuals to come to certain decisions and conclusions and still believe that those decisions and conclusions are their own that Burroughs describes in The Electronic Revolution seems to be reflected in Runciter's tactics.

- Did anyone else notice that Jory was apparently already manifesting his power over the inertials prior to their enterance of half-life through their dreams? Perhaps this is only an unimportant plot detail, but it seems to connect to the novel's ending and the suggestion that there is no way to truly know when you are inside or outside of the society of control, if, in fact, an outside exists.

I'm sure that the novel has many other ideas to offer in a discussion of control societies, but these are the ones that occured to me. It would be great to hear what others found in the novel, because Dick seems to create endless paranoid possibilities for interpretation.

10/11/2007 9:14 PM

I'm aware that the Where are they now? entry by mobius was written in response to a different course, but I feel compelled to offer a reply, even if, by doing so, I sound exactly like one of the Schleprockian individuals that mobius criticized in class.

Yes, I agree that the Lizard King Paradigm of the Bush Administration (to condense mobius' statements) is over. Everything from public opinion polls to the failure in Iraq to the perpetual resignations of primary figures in the administration to the growing dissatisfaction of even Christian Fundamentalists with the adminstration's inability to deliver on its promises suggests that this is the case.

But what now? Does the fall of Bushian excess necessarily mean the end of the larger paradigm of tepid, shallow image-centric politics that has dominated since Reagan? Does it mean that we will begin to acknowledge and seriously address the issues of poverty, civil rights, corporate crime, global capitalistic exploitation, etc. that have been ignored for just as long? Does it even mean that we will soon see the end of the disasters, such as the War in Iraq, that the Bush administration itself created?

It doesn't look as if these changes will come within the mainstream political establishment. The Democrats and Republicans are still very much trapped within the perspectives of their past successes, trying to recreate the Clinton and Reagan eras, respectively.

But then, the changes of the 60s and 70s did not come from within the primary political parties either. Legitimate revolution seems to come out of counter-cultural movements that operate outside of the conventional political sphere. But where is our counter-culture? Where are our social movement? If this really is the end of a paradigm, where are our revolutionaries? Where is our Nation of Islam, our Weathermen, our Black Panter Party? Where is our Malcolm X, our Abbie Hoffman, our Timothy Leary?

Perhaps I'm trapped in the resistance mindset that we discussed last week, and perhaps that's not constructive or conducive to social change. Maybe it does just reinforce the positive feedback loop that allows the society of control to exist. I really would like to see us create something new--whatever that might be--to replace this political era, but I don't see much evidence that it is occuring yet. Maybe new communication technologies are opening up possibilities for this creation, maybe we can, as mobius suggested, begin rewriting the script for the control society. I hope so. But, at the moment, if this "long nightmare" has exhausted itself, the only mood that seems to have replaced it is exhaustion.

10/11/2007 10:47 AM

After reading John Lilly's Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer, I feel both skepticism and fascination (and, thanks to Lilly's scientific terminology, some confusion).

I'm skeptical about the article because I'm concerned that the attempt to use a metaphor, in this case computer programming, to describe the processes of human thought and emotion will almost inevitably prove limiting and blinding if totally accepted, since such a metaphor is going to inevitably place special emphasis on certain aspects of these processes, while deemphasizing or disregarding others.

That said, Lilly's use of this metaphor is surprising wholistic and unbiased, particularly for scientific writing. He even attempts to reconcile experiences of the spiritual and the supernatural with his theory, incorporating the capacity for producing such experiences into the programs of the human biocomputer.

I was particularly interested by Lilly's discussion of counterproductive emergency programs developed during times of stress in childhood, as I could relate that discussion directly to my personal experience. I can observe behavioral cycles repeating themselves, especially under times of stress, that are clearly illogical and counterproductive, but which seem intractable. It's not difficult for me to imagine that these cycles are internal programs, triggered by external and internal states, that run and perform their set of commands outside of my concious control.

With that in mind, I wonder if there are alternative, and equally effect forms of metaprogramming, besides those mentioned by Lilly in his article. Obtaining and consuming LSD under the safe conditions and with the assistance of a metaprogramming professional, as Lily recommends, is now even more difficult than it was when Lilly was writing. Dolphin interlock is also rather impractical. Lilly mentions psychoanalysis, but he seems to view the psychoanalytic progress as a psychological primer to prepare a patient for LSD metaprogramming, and not as a complete metaprogramming tool in itself. So are there other options? Perhaps sensory deprivation. I wonder if it's too late to make an appointment to float.

10/4/2007 11:51 PM

After reading GutenOrgan's analysis of Society Against the State, I have to agree that Clastres' perspective does seem like a new take on the Noble Savage concept, and, as such, that it reproduce the civilized/uncivilized dichotemy that was used as a justification for colonialism, even if Clastres' argument reverses the prejudices of this form of classification.

However, I'm not sure if the question "when did humans--or other animals--predate power relations?" is exactly in line with Clastres' argument. After all, the passage does refer to warfare, and thus does not seem to imagine that indigenous societies were free of all power relations. It seems that Clastres is only refering to power relations based on work, or rather excessive work with the aim of generating a surplus to support a ruling class. This seems to be the specific variety of power structure that Clastres is refering to as the State.

Were indigenous societies really without this form of power structure? I'm not sure. Burroughs seems to imagine history differently when he describes Mayans rebelling against a repressive, toil-based society ruled by sadistic priests. But then that depiction is just as much a function of the argument that Burroughs wishes to present as Clastres toil-less native societies are a function of his argument. Ultimately, as GutenOrgan implies in the conclusion of his post, I think it would be best to approach these texts philosophically rather than historically. I doubt that either the portrayal of indigenuous societies offered by Burroughs or Clastres would survive close historical scrutiny, but both seem to present perspectives and philosphies that function as useful critiques of contemporary society.

10/2/2007 10:13 PM

I feel as if I've been seriously slacking in contributions to the wiki this week, possibly because of a combination of the remnants of my fast-fading illness, the quickly approaching due date for my paper in Prof. Bell's seminar, and the pile of undergraduate papers that I was handed on Monday, and which I just finished grading an hour and a half ago. I think grading the papers so early, rather than saving them for this weekend, was a self-deceptive act of procrastination: I did not want to work on writing my own paper, so I thought, "But wait! I have all these other papers to grade! I really should not put that off."

At any rate, excuses aside, I'm having some difficulty thinking of something valuable to contribute to the wiki this week. I did the reading, and, while I found both of the readings (particularly the excerpt from Society Against the State) interesting, I'm having some trouble thinking of something to say about them that would not simply be offering a synopsis of the reading or rendering an uninformed value judgment on the content of the reading. I guess something that I feel I'm struggling with in this course is integration of ideas. I'm having some trouble constructing a framework that will allow me to play the ideas and concepts in readings against each other or to reach some deeper understanding of the philosophy underlying the course. As I said in my last entry, Burroughs was extremely helpful in that regard, since it seems as if his ideas could be applied to many of the readings, but I still feel, well, to be hypersimplistic, rather lost. I feel as if I am failing to connect to the content of the course on some fundamental, basic level. Or, perhaps I'm exagerrating, or maybe I've just arrived at that inevitable point in the semester where I begin questions the courses that I am taking and my own abilities. I'm not sure.

(I may regret writing the above. One facet of the internet that I'm all too familiar with is its ability to induce you to make candid statements that later prove embarrassing.)

Anyway, I'm going to try to add something substantive later. I wanted to create a page for posting Burroughsian (Is that a word?) cutups of propaganda, news articles, etc., but I don't have one of my own to contribute just yet, so the page will have to remain temporarily empty.

9/25/2007 12:26 PM

First, thanks for the "get well" wishes, but, more importantly, thanks for the advice.

When I made my post, I primarily used the extended World War I metaphor to describe my illness out of an attempt to describe it humorously, through hyperbole. It's interesting that the war metaphor for sickness, which is so thoroughly imbedded into our society's dialogue on disease, was the first (and only) possible option that occured to me. In some sense, this reminds me of Burrough's discussion of de-scrambling, since essentially I took society's common perspective on disease, restated it and extended it, and claimed it as my own with much self-reflection.

Certainly the war metaphor has produced a deluded and unproductive perspective when applied to other issues: The War on Drugs has created more ingenious drug runners and feelings of shame and fear of punishment for drug users, while the War on Terror has only served to validate and popularize terrorism as a tactic while ignoring the potential legitimacy of underlying concerns and motivations of "terrorist" groups. Is the same true of disease? Well, certainly the chemical and biological weapons that we created to fight this war have often lead the "enemy" to adapt new tactics and erect new defenses. But I don't think mobius was simply refering to the drawbacks of anti-biotics. So is there something fundamentally flawed in the application the war metaphor to illness? Probably. As with any metaphor, is distorts the reality of the situation and encourages a specific emotional response, in this case a combative response, that may, in reality, be an ill fit for the actual situation.

So is there a better metaphor that could be used for illness? I've been thinking about this since I read mobius' post, and I was surprised to realize just how thoroughly entrenched--excuse the pun--the war metaphor was in my understanding and vocabulary of illness. I honestly could not think of any other possibilities for what seemed like a rather long time. At some point, my mind, which had already begun to stray to the approaching due date for the first paper in Prof. Bell's African American Paraliterature course, the shrieking teapot on the stove, and the response paper on the Derrida writings for 501 that I read in a groggy, semi-concious state over the weekend, offered the following: "What about ritual?"

It seems that illness does, in fact, have a lot of similarities to ritual. (Or, at least, that I've been able to force some similarities on them.) Both entail an aspect of pain and prolonged suffering. The Sun Dance, after all, was not simply enlightenment, it was enlightment via self-skewering and hanging by rods inserted through one's flesh. Both illness and ritual often entail a dietary change, fasting, on the part of the participant, and in both cases this is usually a change towards liquid over solid food. Both deman stillness and the disruption of established routines, as I learned while lying in bed, fitfully considering what work I was not doing. Finally, both, to some degree result in a form of altered conciousness. I noticed that while sick my mind fixated on topics and produced associations that it would not have if I were well. I remembered things that I had not thought about it some time, and remembered them in new contexts, sometimes drawing new conclusions. Yes, I know. This isn't quite the sense of transcendence or enlightenment that one is supposed to feel at the completion of a ritual, but it is a form of modified awareness, a kind of forced personal reassessment.

Ok, I suppose that's enough on the topic of illness. With any luck, my next entry will be a real, substantive response to the readings and the class assignment.

Actually, one quick thought about the readings: I wish that Buroughs' \"Electronic Revolution\" had been one of the first readings for the class, because, after reading it, I feel like it, more than anything else we've read, offers a philosophical foundation for the rest of the course, and much of what we've already discussed has acquired new meaning in light of Burroughs' insights.

9/24/2007 11:38 PM

I intend to try to write a legitimate wikiblog entry replying to our readings sometime prior to Thursday, but presently, as if in response to Burrough's speculation that language is a virus, I've contracted the cold virus that has been spreading across campus. The casualties from the war of attrition that my immune system has been waging with the viral enemy have collected at the back of my throat, and, if intellegence reports from the front are correct, I expect the warring parties to entrench themselves in my sinuses next and to do battle there until my body is forced to mourn and rationalize the loss of an entire micro-organism generation.

I've drank about a gallon of orange juice in the past three days, and there's another gallon in the fridge, which will undoubtably be consumed before the end of the week. I may also have consumed more than the 2 cough drops per 2 hour period recommended in the instructions on my bag of strawberry flavored cough drops that taste less like strawberries than like solidified Vicks Vaporub dipped in strawberry syrup.

So, in short, I am not feeling, and, lacking other more productive coping strategies, I decided to whine about it on the internet. That is all.

''Sorry to hear it - my house is also a search engine for novel nucleic acids. Now listen: Here's a metaprogramming routine for you: Experiment with language besides the language of war ( ""casualities"; "war of attrition"; "viral enemy", etc) when talking about and imagining and responding to your illness, and see if it don't make you feel bettah. If you splice John Lilly metaprogramming techniques in with [http://books.google.com/books?id=c-C3m6d