Home > Psychedelic Literature > Andy Letcher and the Strange Case of the Deconstructed Mushroom

Andy Letcher and the Strange Case of the Deconstructed Mushroom

What better place for a discussion on the rarefied subject of magic mushrooms than the hippy-oriented Sunrise Festival in Somerset, England, just down the road from Stonehenge? On a hot Saturday afternoon in early June 2010, a group of us gathered in the Ancient Futures yurt to hear Andy Letcher’s talk on ‘Reading the Codex: Making Sense of Magic Mushrooms’.

Andy Letcher, a holder of two doctorates—the first ecology related, the second concerning Bardic performance in contemporary Paganism—is the author of Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom, a comprehensive and informative overview of mushroom culture and its position in the larger psychedelic pantheon. Published in 2006, the book was generally well received and critically acclaimed, but due to its revisionist stance on many of the cherished theories concerning psychedelic use throughout history, it has also excited much controversy and opposition. On some internet message boards this has escalated to open hostility and outright abuse, and, perhaps worse still, the accusation that Andy has never even taken mushrooms.

In a nutshell, Shroom argues that hard evidence for much of the received wisdom concerning past psychedelic use—with a particular focus on mushrooms—simply isn’t there, and it is largely a wish-fulfilment back projection on the part of the modern psychedelic movement. So, how come such an issue has got many people’s back up? Perhaps it’s the sureness of Andy’s academic position: I must be right because the evidence (or lack of it) speaks for itself. Perhaps it’s because he takes material that is understood by many to serve as myth or half-truth rather than solid fact, and by insisting on holding it up to factual scrutiny rather tramples it into the ground. Or perhaps it’s because his literal evidence-based approach to the subject cuts right against the grain of the enchanted, mythopoeic, supra-rational radiance of mushroom gnosis itself.

As he began his lecture, no doubt aware of this undercurrent of feeling, Andy laid his cards on the table. He described himself as a ‘hippy’, an insider, who, though he’s an academic is still very much ‘one of us’. Indeed he does take mushrooms, though he prefers lower doses, and he has experienced that all-important gnosis first hand. With long flowing centrally parted hair, earrings and a neat distinguished-looking King Charles I-style moustache and goatee, he certainly looks the part of a hippy; and as the talk progressed, he used demotic, non-academic language, such as ‘tripping their tits off’ and liberal lashings of swear words.

Having softened up the audience to a degree, Andy introduced the flip side of his persona, so to speak, the academic with the fact-based arguments, which in the case of this particular lecture related specifically to psilocybin mushroom use in Britain. As an academic, he’s an aficionado of the structuralist and post-structuralist schools of thought, which formulate a method of analysis that puts great emphasis on meaning as part of the cultural context in which it’s expressed, as opposed to any intrinsic or absolute meaning residing in a word or other signifier. An obvious example of meaning shift can be found in the word ‘gay’, which has been so universally adopted as a synonym for homosexuality that its usual signification has all but disappeared.

In Shroom, applying the method to the cultural context of the psychedelic movement, Andy concludes that its members were all too ready to embrace any and every notion of historical psychedelic use, as it served to buttress and lend legitimacy to current psychedelic practices. Thus the past was viewed through the cultural lenses of the present and reinvented accordingly. One by one, those historical assumptions are set up for structuralist scrutiny and found wanting. Supposed Druidic mushroom use is shown to be a fantasy coddled together from the myths of many cultures; witches riding henbane-smeared broomsticks is proto-feminist propaganda; Santa Claus the shaman in fly-agaric coordinated clothing is a 19th century construction, further fostered by Coca Cola and Robert Graves. And so on, and so on.

On the basis of a show of hands, only a very few in the audience had read Shroom and so perhaps didn’t know what they were in for, namely more of this debunking-oriented rhetoric. Sure enough Andy informed us that the first recorded example of intentional psilocybin mushroom use in Britain occurred as late as the 1970s. He said that mushrooms didn’t show up in the archaeological record and that the only earlier recorded examples of mushroom consumption were medical accounts of (apparently psychedelic) mushroom poisonings, which he described with some relish. This then is the only hard evidence we have on the subject. 

‘Magic Mushrooms’ by Roger B. on Flickr, courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing

 

By now some in the audience were getting restless as they grasped the import of what Andy was implying—that because evidence of intentional, as opposed to misadventurous, mushroom use wasn’t there then maybe, even probably, it didn’t happen at all till the 1950s. A few people made challenges, their gist being that surely unrecorded instances of intentional mushroom use must be numerous. One guy told of an oral tradition of such use that he personally knew of, which stretched back at least three generations, to some point well before the dawn of the psychedelic era. It would have been interesting to have heard more from him.

Readers of Shroom will find Andy’s position familiar, for within its pages he declares that there is no evidence of pre-psychedelic era intentional mushroom use (outside of indigenous shamanistic communities) and therefore any assumptions of such use amount to ‘wishful thinking’. Wishful thinking…? What about other measures, you might ask, such as the balance of probability? Surely if past medical records of mushroom ‘poisonings’ exist, it shows that mushrooms were around and people were eating them; so how many dozens, scores or even hundred of events must have occurred over the centuries that didn’t require medical intervention, perhaps because the protagonists didn’t experience them as wholly unpleasant, or even, dare we say it, enjoyable?

Andy has an answer for that one, namely that within the British zeitgeist, non-edible mushrooms have been unequivocally regarded as poisonous and therefore avoided, experimented with only by the foolhardy and the nutritionally desperate. Added to that, because there was no cultural framework for construing a mushroom experience as ‘recreational’ or ‘psychonautic’ or whatever, then anyone undergoing ‘trippy effects’ would believe they were succumbing to a poisoning, and therefore, because of the law of set, have a bad experience. Moreover, mushroom taxonomy lagged behind that of plants, so when it came to identifying which mushrooms were safe or otherwise, things were most unreliable.

This argument certainly holds a lot of plausibility up until the19th century, when the climate began to change rapidly. Firstly taxonomy improved, so that mycologists could accurately identify which mushroom species were innocuous, which were poisonous and which were somewhere in between. Secondly drug experience began to be written about and enter public consciousness. The opium usage of Coleridge and his friend De Quincey was the most well-known example, and as Andy helpfully points out, there was also Humphry Davy’s use of nitrous oxide, Weir Mitchell’s use of peyote and the French hashish candy tradition. But according to Andy these ‘narcotic perspectives’ made no difference to the perception of mushrooms, which were still regarded as poisonous.

Only a few pages later, though, he discusses Mordecai Cooke’s The Seven Sisters of Sleep (1860), which performs exactly that function—to put psychotropic mushrooms within a narcotic perspective, principally drawing on Siberian shamanic use of the fly-agaric. Cooke was well aware of the ‘recreational’ propensity of both the fly-agaric and psilocybin mushrooms, Andy admits; but then he says it was ‘extremely unlikely’ that Cooke took mushrooms himself, and that in later life Cooke went back on his more liberal stance, warning people to avoid Liberty Caps and indeed overindulgence in all its forms. This warning then, Andy argues, headed off a potential Victorian mushroom craze and kept the fear of mushrooms as agents of poisoning ‘firmly in place’.

Those statements are worthy of closer examination. Firstly, considering Cooke knew his drugs and knew his mushrooms, and wrote with perspicacity about both, it is indeed possible that he might have experimented with the latter in his adventurous youth—he was clearly something of an ur-Beat or hippy figure—but then again he didn’t exactly want to broadcast it from the rooftops. Even today writers of drug literature are sometimes coy about their own involvement; nowhere in Shroom does Andy own up to using mushrooms himself. This is totally understandable for a variety of reasons, not the least being publisher pressure to appear ‘respectable’ and to maintain authorial distance from controversial subject matter.

Secondly, within Seven Sisters, Cooke gives a Wasson-like discourse on why different cultures regard the same mushroom (the fly-agaric) as respectively poisonous and desirable; he then details the Siberian methods of neutralising the poisonous alkoloids—drying and boiling—and then goes on to describe the narcotic effects, making them sound reasonably alluring. This then is information putative Victorian myconauts might well have absorbed and perhaps acted upon. Cleary the cat is out of the bag! Moreover it is axiomatic that Cooke’s later warning is addressed to those who are savvy about mushrooms in that respect, for why warn against intentionally taking a believed poison? It corresponds to warnings about the evils of drink, tobacco or opium—a caution against moral decay, not perilous toxicity. In fact Cooke’s act of issuing a warning is, when you think about it, an indication of the likelihood of people using mushrooms and the desire to head it off and perhaps disclaim responsibility.

On top of that, how can we be sure that Cooke’s warning was taken at face value and wholeheartedly believed by all who read it—especially as it amounts to a recapitulation of what he’d said earlier? And as we know all too well, anti-drug edicts are self-defeating, as they encourage at least as many as they put off. What is beyond doubt is that after Seven Sisters literary references to narcotic mushroom states continued to generate. The most famous example is, of course, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865), where Alice partakes of a mushroom in order to make her bigger or smaller—a reference to the macropsia effect of fly-agaric—and overall her adventures take place in a notably hallucinatory dimension. Then there are more realistic accounts of mushroom ‘tripping’ in the works of Charles Kingsley and H. G. Wells. But the most striking example is American John Uri Lloyd’s Etidorhpa (1897), which, with its protracted references to mushroom intoxication, detailed authoritative descriptions of heavenly and hellish states, and also time dilation within the hallucinatory world, strongly hints that personal experience as much as imagination is at work in its creation.

The state of Victorian psychotropic mushroom knowledge and how it developed from 1860 onwards is then a grey area, worthy of further research. Armed with the information that their effects were intoxicating rather than poisonous and that other cultures, namely the Siberians, used them intentionally for that purpose, how many must have ventured to experiment between 1860 and 1960? Five, ten, twenty, fifty? Surely, on the balance of probability and plain common sense, it must be more than zero. But…and, as far as I know Andy is absolutely right in this respect, they left no unequivocal evidence of such experiments…

But what evidence might we expect to find? There is a striking circularity to this whole evidence argument, namely that the only cases likely to present to record makers are the negative ones, so naturally all the records are going to be negative. How exactly would one have gone about creating a record of intentional psychotropic mushroom use that would have disseminated itself into the cultural framework and remained visible to a 21st century researcher? Perhaps diaries and unpublished books were written and have now been lost to posterity. Or, more likely, if people were ‘doing mushrooms’ the activity would have been regarded by others not ‘in the know’ as suspicious, so instead it went on clandestinely, with record-making absolutely shunned. If people didn’t openly talk about it then, and because mushroom picking and consuming is an ostensibly innocent activity, usually rurally focussed, it would not have been associated with other types of drug taking by general observers or the authorities, and therefore would have remained under the radar of external record-making agencies, such as newspapers.

‘Fly-agarics’ by notacrime on Flickr, courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing
 

What about orally transmitted accounts? Well, a sceptic might argue that such accounts could easily be fabricated, but, as I said earlier, one guy in the audience talked of a tradition that encompassed a third-party, that party’s father and grandfather, and he sounded genuine to me—if you’re reading this, good sir, please tells us more! From my own experience of using fly-agaric in the New Forest area in the mid-’70s, I can say for sure that a sizeable network of such use existed there, where the mushroom is most plentiful, and though I only had one such trip myself, recorded in The Mad Artist, others had many. This is, of course, within the timescale of the psychedelic era; but old hippies who were middle-aged at the time implied it had been going on for donkey’s years, and that their fly-agaric knowledge came not from the likes of Wasson, of whom they’d never heard, but through a local oral tradition.

Well, back in the yurt the lecture went on, and the fact is that Andy is such a good talker, such a quick-witted and articulate guy, that he managed to fend off most of the challenges and retain the upper hand. Another audience member raised a question, but before he even voiced it, he said with a sense of defeat, ‘I already know what you’re going to say to this.’ He then put forward the idea that the church had perhaps destroyed evidence of earlier mushroom cults, sanitising the historical picture. Without any evidence to support such a claim, it didn’t seem worth speculating about. Andy’s point had indeed sunk in.

But if the mood got occasionally sombre what with all this cold water sloshing around, Andy strove to lighten things up a little. In a reassuring tone, he said that it’s okay to believe that the Druids took magic mushrooms if you want to. Nobody had voiced such a belief, and it seemed to me an oddish thing to say, like telling a child it’s okay to believe in fairies. A few in the audience murmured back, ‘But what do you believe?’—perhaps the sixty-four thousand dollar question of the day. Having drafted a distinctly surreal version of the past, where nothing is granted any ontological relevance unless it has a published or similarly evidential source, Andy had certainly left people wondering.

‘Phryne at the Poseidonia in Eleusis’ by Genrich Ippolitovich Semiradsky (1889)

 

As a comprehensive overview of mushroom culture, or ‘shroomology’, Shroom is indeed a most worthy addition to the canon of psychedelic literature. Personally I really enjoyed it when I first read it, thinking it well written, an engaging page turner of a book, which is packed with a host of useful information, very expertly marshalled together. When Andy isn’t riding the debunking hobbyhorse, he has some very illuminating and uplifting things to say about the world of psychedelia, and his true insider status, his hippy consciousness is indeed manifest. But the debunking agenda is very extensive, as Andy, playing devil’s advocate to the psychedelic enthusiast who will see a mushroom in every story, examines a wide range of aspects of psychedelic use, past and present, his pail of cold water always at the ready.

For example, even where there is rock solid evidence of a long-standing tradition, such as that of South American ayahuasca use, Andy will still argue that many tribes avoid the substance because of negative associations. He also tells us that according to statistics most people in Holland who have taken mushrooms only do so once or twice in their lives. Unlike mushrooms, cannabis does show up in the archaeological record, but Andy says that is no guarantee it was used psychoactively. Moreover, if we interpret mushroom-like objects in historical and pre-historical art as mushrooms, we may be guilty of Rorschach-style projection, Andy cautions. And to top it all, in Andy’s reckoning Coleridge’s ‘Kubla Khan’ was only ‘supposedly’ opium inspired—even though Coleridge’s own Preface states the poem came out of an opium dream.

Nowhere in Shroom is this doubting tendency more apparent than when Andy considers the two cornerstones of presumed psychedelic usage in the ancient world: Soma and Eleusis. In both cases exactly the right cultural contexts and quite extensive evidence does exist, but naturally Andy is going to do battle with it, and every tool in the structuralist’s armoury is employed in the attempt to knock down or at least weaken the various theories.

In the case of Soma, he warms up by spending a whole chapter casting doubt on the credibility of the major figure in shroomology: R. Gordon Wasson. Andy’s dismantling of Wasson reminds me uncannily of the exercise performed by Richard De Mille on Carlos Castaneda in Castaneda’s Journey (1976). A reasonable portion of faint praise is backed up a many-pronged attack, a steady trawl through life and work in order to find shortcomings and thereby deliver a death of a thousand cuts. It would take too long to detail the myriad ways in which Andy undermines Wasson, but they include highlighting his amateur, ‘armchair’ status as an anthropologist, his massive ego as a banker, his perception of a profit motivation in his mushroom work, and his affair with a fly-agaric shamaness, which perhaps rendered her testimony suspect. All of this supports Andy’s central accusation against Wasson, which is that he had a preconceived theory that world religions started as mushroom cults, and he manipulated his research to make it fit this theory—a ‘myth’ which Andy uses all his powers to deconstruct.

So when it comes to Soma itself, Andy subjects Wasson’s fly-agaric hypothesis to the utmost scrutiny, and indeed creates room for doubt, using the earlier characterisation of Wasson to back up his case. But he doesn’t just stop there. Surely, we say to ourselves, the identity of Soma may be in doubt, but from the detailed descriptions in the Vedic Hymns, there is no doubt that it must have been a psychoactive of some sort…? After considering the various alternative candidates, Andy does indeed voice the very possibility that it wasn’t, using a rapturous description of tea drinking to make the point that folk will wax lyrical about anything.

Then we come to the rites of Eleusis in ancient Greece, a sacred ceremony, enduring for nearly two thousand years, which also involved the consumption of a potion, the kykeon, prior to entering an initiation hall and experiencing the profound and ecstatic mystery. We know this much, and even though it was punishable on pain of death to reveal the content of the mystery, we also know that a certain Aristides contributed a description, talking of a ‘rivalry between seeing and hearing’—a reference to synaesthesia perhaps? And in The Road to Eleusis, by Wasson, Hofmann and Ruck (1978), there are numerous other pointers to the kykeon’s status as an ergot-based psychoactive.

So whilst Andy admits to the possibility that the kykeon may have been hallucinogenic, he also says that the history of religion contains similar examples of epiphanies where no potion was involved; and yes he also makes the inevitable suggestion that the potion wasn’t psychoactive and that close to two thousand years of mass transcendental experience may all be attributable to placebo effect.

But if the kykeon and indeed Soma were the entheogenic equivalents of non-alcoholic lager, then why bother with them at all? Why are they important and why do they figure so significantly in the literature in both cases? If their effects were of the placebo variety, are we to assume that the large majority of participants were effectively fooled by a sham? One might think that to postulate both Soma and Eleusis could be put down to placebo effect is to clutch at straws, but each of us can make up our own minds about that.

However, back in the Ancient Futures yurt, an enterprising audience member challenged Andy about the by now rather vexed issue of record making. He said that at what point might anyone expect records to be made of the use of any vegetable, and is the absence of such records a firm indication of lack of use? Helpfully he gave an example—watercress. At this Andy laughed heartily, long and deep. He then countered by saying he would hardly expect any religion to be founded on the use of watercress! So…perhaps even Andy himself finds the ‘placebo theory’ a little hard to swallow.

Taking another line of attack, Andy also discussed the famous pre-historic image of a bemushroomed shaman from the Tassili Plateau, which has been embraced by psychedelic enthusiasts as iconic evidence of the long psychedelic tradition. Holding up the image, Andy then played his structuralist trump card, telling us this wasn’t the original but a copy by Kat Harrison, former wife of Terence McKenna, in which she’d doctored the mushroom-like protuberances in order to make them more convincing. Like Wasson, she’d been tampering with the evidence, enabling the Rorschach projection of the psychedelic enthusiast to take over and put the matter beyond doubt when in fact it wasn’t.

What anyone can believe, based on reproductions of all kinds and a Neolithic Era original is an open question; but what is interesting about this whole Rorschach argument is that it clearly cuts both ways. Whilst the psychedelic enthusiast will see mushrooms, the sceptic will see anything but, and the sceptical agenda can therefore easily become a flip side, negative version of the enthusiast’s, excising the mushroom from every story and practising a campaign of floccinaucinihilipilification towards historical psychedelic use.

As for the structuralist technique of criticism, it clearly works well against some of the more fuzzy areas of psychedelic belief, but far less well against others, where, whichever way you look at it, the evidence is very compelling. And the bottom line here is that though Wasson, Harrison and others may well have loaded the dice, they may still have been right about the significance of psychedelics in the history of philosophy and religions, and proof of their suspect cultural perspectives is not proof that the whole thing is whitewash.

And as for Andy’s own ‘theory’, expressed near the beginning of Shroom—that Western mushroom use dates back only to the 1950s—one might well think it’s a case of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence, moving away from a neutral position. For its credibility, it relies on the preponderance of published sources that talk negatively about mushroom effects, and the idea that they were believed by all who read them. Interestingly, buried within the scores of pages in Shroom that make this argument, there is a little disclaimer, where Andy admits we have no first-hand accounts from the ‘victims’ of mushroom ‘poisonings’, so it’s impossible prove they were never knowingly consumed—one sentence that says so very much. Yes, absolutely, there were no Middle Ages, Renaissance or Victorian equivalents of Erowid!

If intentional mushroom tripping were taking place before the 1950s then there were simply no parameters by which it could have been publicly aired. What was different about the psychedelic era was that for the first time a climate evolved where the alternative view, the positive side of the forbidden fruit equation, could at last be voiced and go on record; and of course the practices then spread exponentially. No such paradigm existed before, so whatever took place did so underground and was therefore invisible; and it’s easy to regard invisibility as non-existence. The next step should be to attempt to discover holders of knowledge of long-standing mushroom oral traditions and get them to present what they know for scrutiny. If there was one in that Ancient Futures yurt that day, there must be many others worldwide.

Advertisements
  1. Beow
    August 7, 2010 at 1:43 am

    To my mind, the biggest gap in scholarship to be found in Shroom is its treatment of psychedelic usage in early Christianity. Andy gives it no more than a few pages, spending most of the time beating the dead horse of John Allegro and taking shots at some of Clark Henrich’s flimsier speculations. For a powerful treatise on the subject of early Christian psychoactive usage, check out The Apples of Apollo by Carl Ruck, Blaise Staples, and Clark Heinrich. It’s the only arena of history about which I’m knowledgeable, so I can’t say much about Andy’s debunking of other historical mushroom myths. But he dropped the ball on the topic of a psychedelicized early Christianity, and it might be enough to unravel his entire “we are the first mushroom culture” argument.

  2. motley
    August 7, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    i saw the beemushroomed shamen once night in my dark bathroom while going for a pee.Yes iwas on mushrooms but it had been years since i saw the image in Mckenna ‘s book. I watched the image morph into 2 pre-raphelite goddess/ fairys .. who konws .all I know the vision appeared with no intention on my part. Maybe it was dreadged from my unconcious, though i think more likely it was a some sort of contact experience, it did leve me feel elated for weeks.
    A major weakness in Lecter book is his lack of detail on his on experiences.This where Mckenna wipes the floor with him and to mind has more honest approach.Lecter appraoch seems to be destroy the holy cows of psychedelia to make a name for ones self but without being able to add any undertstanding to the whole experience.

  3. ricorocha
    August 7, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    terrific review of debunker’s bunk which somehow seems antithetical to speculative psychonautic approach which is not evidentially bound shroud of turin anyone tangentially related a recent revelation for anyone unaware is the case of pont-st-esprit in which the “outbreak of poisoning” may be plausibly explained as an lsd induced operation instead of blamed on ergot bread http://www.voltairenet.org/article164447.html

  4. August 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Hi Rog!
    Well written article! This is indeed a fascinating little debate but unfortunately one that I believe has been over-cooked slightly.

    Andy’s contention is, living aside pictoral evidence for the moment, that there is no written evidence that proves unbroken historical use of magic mushrooms in the Western world. Not that no-one ever took magic mushrooms. These are two completely different projects and people, who rise up in anger at the idea that he is saying no-one ever used them, have either not read the book or failed to understand the project. Why does he call magic mushrooms a particular Western phenomena? Because they reached a tipping point in our society that led to an identificable cultural meme. Something, no matter what tit-bits you might find, that has not happened in the past because there would be ample record (though of course if someone was to find me a magic mushroom manual from antiquity, I’d be very happy to change my mind – as I think would Andy as well.)

    Of the serious attempts to breakdown his argument I’ve seen a lot of hot air that basically attack his writing style and ignores the evidence that he discusses. Sort of not seeing the wood for the trees. The best looking position to back the argument of unbroken entheogenic use of mushrooms might well be in the art history department but I’ve yet to see a serious art historian take this case to heart and, until such a date, this remains a mute point.

    Roger you mention “Soma and Eleusis” – where is the evidence that they were mushrooms? As you state Eleusis was more likely to be an ergot-based grain/rye – And SOMA is a very sticky point because we have just a few paragraphs of information in the ancient Rig Veda, which is far from conclusive. As per Wasson, I believe Jan Irvin is doing some work in this area and I look forward to his findings very much, as perhaps this will shine light on the ‘structuralist’ understanding of the culture! Also, by not including the hypothesis that Eleusis was a mass-placebo then his work would be inconclusive as it wouldn’t be examining all the possibilities – rather than a sticking point, this shows how rigourous the work is.

    I would also love to hear more about this British oral tradition – but I ain’t holding my breath – it mind as well be the Christian word of God. “Yes, absolutely, there were no Middle Ages, Renaissance or Victorian equivalents of Erowid!” – Roger! The only people who wrote in those early times were the Monks and alike, the ones supposedly involved in the unbroken entheogenic use. Nuff’ said.

    Motley – If I were studying historical military strategies would I be expected to be a general in an army to understand it? No. That’s ridiculous! His own use of mushrooms is totally beside the point. The book isn’t about the nature of the psychedelic experience, if it was, then yes, he would be expected to talk about his own experiences but…it’s not!! Personal experience is irrelevant when studying evidence. This method of attacking a position by claiming some supra-experiential knowledge is absurd – in the way Kafka, or Camus, might use the term.

    xxx

  5. August 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Rob, huge thanks for your well-informed expert input. I was hoping you’d respond in fact!

    You’re right, there’s a lot of confusion around and sorting it out is no easy matter. I was careful to check my facts before proceeding and what Andy actually says in Shroom is this:

    “Clearly the contention of this book that Western mushroom use dates only to the 1950s will meet with considerable resistance from some quarters.”

    That sentence doesn’t differentiate between recorded and unrecorded mushroom use, it says what it says. True, as I mentioned in the piece, Andy does also say that we have no first-hand accounts from the victims of mushroom poisonings, so it’s impossible to prove they were never knowingly consumed; but the sheer weight of argument given over to support the quoted statement and the minimal weight given to the neutral or “we don’t know” position might well confuse a lot of people, as you describe.

    From a pure, rigorous, academic standpoint Andy is on firm ground, I’m sure, but Shroom has a broader brief than as a specialist academic text and most of its readers aren’t academics. Many of them don’t buy the idea that if there had been mushroom activity in the past there would be ample record. That is very much the cultural perspective of the academic, but it isn’t necessarily so, which relates to my (semi-humorous) “Erowid” point. Few people were literate in the past, so obviously vast swathes of activity must have taken place that didn’t find its way onto paper.

    Put it this way: imagine a hypothetical 1000 piece jigsaw of which you only have 300 pieces, and you then stick the 300 pieces together and say, “This is what we know, this is it.” Obviously it’s not so—you have to fairly account for the missing pieces, the gaps.

    As for Soma and Eleusis, I don’t say in the piece that they’re down to mushrooms, I just strongly imply that the weight of probability rests on the side of them being psychedelic rather than placebo induced. True, it is absolutely fine and rigorous and necessary for Andy to entertain the placebo possibility, but in the context of the debunking agenda of the whole book, it very much comes over as “more of the same”, i.e. talking down psychedelic usage.

    Suppose I make two or three criticisms of someone’s appearance…that most probably would be taken as constructive criticism and seen in a good light. But what if I were to make a hundred such criticisms? The point is there’s a clear pattern running through the book, and indeed in the lecture.

    And hey, yeah, I’d also love to hear more about this British oral tradition—and you were there, Rob, and you too heard what that guy said about his friend and his father and grandfather. What a pity I didn’t have the presence of mind to speak to the guy before he slipped away! What we need are more of those missing jigsaw pieces, and in the meantime I’m sure the debate will continue!

    xxx

  6. August 9, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    It’s not your facts I was really querying Roger – your article was very good – but rather some of the other slightly dodgy stuff I’ve read, but these will be left for a later date!

    Fair play on the quote you’ve taken from Shroom – but it shouldn’t be taken out of context from the rest of the book, which is an evidential examination, this isn’t simply Andy making a conjecture but rather the evidence speaking for itself. I just went back and read the last couple of chapters and it is remarkable how little ‘conclusion’ per se is actually employed. That quote was one of only a couple of sentences that really brings out a personal bias, but a bias, nevertheless, derived from evidence. He doesn’t need to “differentiate between recorded and unrecorded mushroom use” because he’d just be re-stating the whole book over again, which is a look at recorded evidence in the light of existing mushroom theory. “The sheer weight of argument given over to support the quoted statement” is the very fallacy I’m eluding too, the book wasn’t written to support a position, the position is derived from the evidence. Before embarking on research you start at the “neutral or “we don’t know” position” and examine therefrom, which is what the book does. Simply logic.

    Your right, Shroom does have a broader brief than an academic, journal text, it’s made, like you say, for a wider audience. It would not get published as it is in a journal, of course not. By academic I merely mean logical and this brings me back to the point of deriving a position from evidence, rather than writing a book to support an unjustified position. The “cultural perspective of an academic” (whatever that means) is ridiculous as the academic position is actually trying to rise above the cultural position, the “cultural perspective” is rather where the attacks are coming from, not vice-versa. Roger – I loved your Erowid comment and I took it as humourous. But again, it doesn’t change the fact that according to the evidential record there was no use, he can’t suddenly come out for the opposite conclusion because that would go against his methodology. Which brings me nicely to the point that this is only one methodology, among many that an academic could take. One has to remember that to understand a picture it is useful to have as many thorough perspectives as possible – from this particular one, my contention is, that Andy has done a really good job. This is so indicative of the main problem of modern psychedelia, it’s fallen into the realms of petty squabbling over whose position reveals the ‘ultimate truth’ when what we need is good, thorough works from many perspectives, in order to give the fullest possible picture.

    Your puzzle metaphor, though I understand it, is misleading. If we call those 300 pieces the evidential record, what do we call the other 700? Again, I wasn’t really poking at you with those comments about SOMA (why do I always put it in capitals? Who knows.) and Eleusis but the work of other people on the subject. “The context of the debunking agenda of the whole book” <- Again, this is an example of misreading the book. The evidence of the book is debunking of the theories, which follows that the book is, which follows that Andy’s conclusion is. It is a fallacy, in the strictest and loosest sense of the word, to think the evidence is fitting a prejudicial agenda, the agenda is derived from the evidence. And, for the record, I agree – the placebo effect is ridiculous on such a large scale; there is plenty of evidence to show that the placebo effect cannot work on such huge levels of people, only in proportions – so yes, fingers-crossed, there were some seriously hardcore psychedelics in play at Eleusis! But I also recognise the importance of bringing in the theory and giving it to the public domain.

    “Suppose I make two or three criticisms of someone’s appearance…that most probably would be taken as constructive criticism and seen in a good light. But what if I were to make a hundred such criticisms? The point is there’s a clear pattern running through the book, and indeed in the lecture.” – With risk of repeating myself, this is exactly the problem of confusion and mis-identifying the point that I stated in the earlier comment. The evidence criticises the theories, not the man criticising the theories. One shouldn’t mix the two up. The author in a work such as this is basically irrelevant – the idea of the author died a longtime ago. One might come back at this point and say that the writing style is putting across the evidence wrongly, in which case one needs to come back (as Jan Irvin has attempted, and in my opinion his project in doing so is incomplete (not necessarily wrong but incomplete) and explain why…maybe write/right a book in reply, for example.

    Psychedelia needs to be rigorous in its research and avoid empty personally-biased speculation and attacks at all costs because if it wants to be taken seriously in the wider world (I believe there is one! :op) and truly become an important part in the history of mankind, it has to defend itself to the hilt, because there is a lot of people who hate it and they are just looking for rubbish speculation to take it down. Andy’s work is great step in that direction and it is unfortunate, and very sad in my opinion, that many people in the movement have taken to shooting down their own side.

    Tricks & Anarchy

    xxx

    PS – I was rather annoyed I didn’t get to talk to that guy at well, hopefully he’ll come out the woodwork soon, especially because I’d love Britain to have its own psychedelic history!

  7. August 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    A finely argued statement, Rob, though I’m not sure I agree with some of the convoluted logic therein. However, lets start at the beginning.

    Regarding the quote: “Clearly the contention of this book that Western mushroom use dates only to the 1950s will meet with considerable resistance from some quarters,” and taking it out of context—I think the statement is so bold that it carries its own context. If you don’t mean it, don’t say it like that. Precision is everything! The whole structure of that sentence, and indeed much of other parts of Shroom, invites resistance: it is confrontational; there is a gauntlet being thrown down. If Andy had said instead: “Clearly the contention of this book that evidence of Western mushroom use dates only to the 1950s will meet with considerable resistance from some quarters,” who could argue with that? In fact he could have dropped the “resistance” part and just said: “The contention of this book is that evidence of Western mushroom use dates only to the 1950s.” That would have been truly neutral and unambivalently accurate.

    Boiling down your argument, Rob, you appear to be saying that “evidence” exists as some prime immutable quantity, independent of the author presenting it. But it is that very author who selects the evidence that is presented and controls how it is presented. “The evidence criticises the theories, not the man criticising the theories. One shouldn’t mix the two up. The author in a work such as this is basically irrelevant – the idea of the author died a longtime ago.” I love the surreality of that statement; if only it were true and books really did write themselves! If it were true, then how come different authors can come to different conclusions when looking at the same evidence? Clearly the author is not irrelevant and is very much alive.

    “…the book wasn’t written to support a position, the position is derived from the evidence.” That’s not how it appears to me. Andy makes the statement: “Clearly the contention of this book that Western mushroom use dates only to the 1950s will meet with considerable resistance from some quarters,” and then marshals the evidence to support it.

    Lets take one of my examples of this tendency—the Mordecai Cooke question. Clearly The Seven Sisters of Sleep undermines the argument that mushrooms lacked a narcotic perspective for Victorians. Of course Andy realises this, so he presents the information in a way that minimises it. Another author might present the same information in a different way to achieve a different end; in short “spin” is involved here. Andy says it was “extremely unlikely” that Cooke took mushrooms himself. That is not an evidence-based statement, that is an opinion! Andy doesn’t know whether Cooke took mushrooms or not. Neither do I. Why not just say, “we don’t know”? If Andy had said “we don’t know” more often in Shroom, then you and I wouldn’t be having this discussion. Of course one might argue that it is legitimate to speculate in certainly circumstances, and indeed that’s so; but if you purport to be writing a rigorous evidence-based piece, then you’d better stick to that throughout; you can’t have it both ways.

    “Your puzzle metaphor, though I understand it, is misleading. If we call those 300 pieces the evidential record, what do we call the other 700?” Simple—the other 700 pieces are things that happened that we don’t know about. Yes, it’s difficult to deal with an unknown, but experience teaches us that wrong conclusions can easily be drawn from an incomplete evidential record. Before Aristotle the evidential record suggested that the earth was flat.

    “Psychedelia needs to be rigorous in its research and avoid empty personally-biased speculation and attacks at all costs because if it wants to be taken seriously in the wider world (I believe there is one! :op) and truly become an important part in the history of mankind, it has to defend itself to the hilt, because there is a lot of people who hate it and they are just looking for rubbish speculation to take it down. Andy’s work is great step in that direction and it is unfortunate, and very sad in my opinion, that many people in the movement have taken to shooting down their own side.”

    I totally agree and I too deplore unfounded and personally biased attacks. Despite my expressed reservations, I think Andy’s work is most valuable and I said that in the piece. You mention the last couple of chapters of Shroom, and they indeed are a nice read, the debunking question having been dispensed with by then. It wasn’t my own intention to shoot Andy down, but to express a certain difficulty I have with this whole “absence of evidence as evidence of absence” issue—which indeed I’ve seen expressed by others and was palpable within the audience reaction at the Ancient Futures lecture. So, Rob, I’m just providing a little bit of that “resistance” that Andy expected…but constructively, of course.

  8. ricorocha
    August 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    for something far more mindblowing and druggie than andy letcher’s search for evidence how about christian kerslake’s the somnambulist and the hermaphrodite http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/243/225 an occult deleuzian strand in academia could be connected to radical countercultural concerns of say christopher gray (1942-2009) and walking with nobby (norman o. brown 1913-2002) http://dalependell.com/books/walking-with-nobby/

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: