D+iz+a+n+k+Meister's Journal: A case for habitual marijuana use. . .

Perception

Consider these two explanations of a "balanced" audio signal. Also consider the process of dithering. The basic idea is, reality will change signals in transmission in a predictable way. In order to get at the reality represented by the signals, with fidelity, it is necessary to deal with the noise created by transmission.

Now consider reality vs. your perception of reality. (I'm not trying to posit anything concerning the ability of a general philosophical entity to understand and reason about reality. I'm trying to stay in a practical, mundane sphere, and not enter into any meta-physical areas.) Is there a difference between the two? If the answer is no, my question is, "How do you know?"

Are you sure that there's no one out in the world who has a different opinion of you than you think they have of you? Are you sure that that annoying person at your office or in your class is actually annoying, and it is not the case that you are just a super uptight asshole?

When you are mad or angry, do you always have a good reason? What about when you are stressed out?

How do you reconcile the way you ought to be feeling with how you actually are feeling? (That's an open question I don't pretend to have an answer to.)

Objectivity

Of course, one doesn't perceive reality soley through emotion, but the emotional reaction may be arguably more important than actual physical events and any ethical considerations.

Yet we strive for objectivity nonetheless. Even relativists draw "critical spheres" from which they can judge reality.

Thus, regardless of one's intents, objectivity, in some form, is desired when processing emotional reactions to reality, as well as in the actual processing of reality, leading up to the emotional reactions.

Appartus

Morpheus asked, "What is real?" And it's hard to deny that the large ammount of signals sent to your brain make up a large percentage of "what is real," regardless of any materialist or idealist leanings.

Those signals also have an effect on one's emotions. And, undeniably, those emotions have an effect on one's ability to process those signals objectively. Emotions can thus cause distortion to the signal.

It's a huge feed back loop with a constantly dynamic, and dramatic, input.

How can one achieve any semblence of objectivity, when their only connection, their only way to process reality is tainted by emotional reactions?

Cancellation

Given the inherent difficulty with and insatiable desire for objectivity, I have introduced into my reality, "noise."

The effects that the noise places on reality are well documented, and dramatic. Easy to spot. Knowing exactly how the noise effects the signal, I am able to analyze the signal from a noisy point of view without any distraction/distortion from the noise, rather than from an emotional/reactive point of view, which establishes the critical sphere from which I can evaluate not just physical reality, but also my emotional reality. Thus any "emotional baggage" I may have becomes crystal clear, and since I'm acutely aware of any emotional baggage/reactions to reality, I can take that into account when processing reality.

Clarity

So, what I'm saying is, with a little practice, being stoned all the time, I see reality clearer than most who are sober. So why wouldn't I smoke weed constantly?

Caveat

I realize that most people believe that part of "growing up" is becoming well adjusted, ie you are able to deal with your emotions. And hey, who am I to argue with beliefs or commonly accepted psychological development.

I maintain that sobriety does not per se guarantee a clear picture of reality. And while habitual dope use does not either, I see no way to establish any critical sphere, free from emotional tainting of reality in sobriety. Marijuana specifically, due to its relaxing effects, gives the user objectivity about their emotions.

Also, I am not talking about habitual "partying" or anything of that nature, nor do I claim that a joint will make loosing your family a breeze. I also do not think smoking joints makes you some kind of super Buddhist monk after one hit, and that smoking constantly is better than Nirvana. But I do think that coming home from work, throwing on your favorite album, doing a "J," and reflecting on your day, is better than coming home from work, "vegging out" in front of the TV, or blogs or vids or whatever, and not thinking.