But I do know that often those seeking 'inspiration' will become so enamored with their own insights that they often fail to execute on what they have found. Instead they do everything they can to maintain that feeling of enlightenment at the expense of truly realizing the meaning of their insight.
This isn't specific to drug use, it's not specific to software development or any set of tasks, it is simply a common theme in human behavior I have anecdotally noticed in myself and others over the years.
So based on that...
What I think what Alan Watts intends to say is that if you don't *do* anything concrete with your inspiration then you're simply sitting around on the phone waiting for the next dopamine hit from your 'next great insight' about [literally anything].
In my opinion I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, just that Alan Watts was likely a more objective driven person than his peers, whom sought to live in the experience rather than use it to further some abstract objectives.
What do you do as a consequence of looking at a sunset or a great painting, listening to some amazing music, or having mind-blowing sex?
Are such experiences to be devalued unless they lead to something productive?
Maybe some great works of art do have influences on people, but they're not exactly as easy to trace as, say, being taught some useful skill. That doesn't mean that great works of art are valueless nor that we should only value what is useful.
Also, what if your mood improves after taking psychedelics? Or if you enjoy life more, or you're less stressed out? You haven't necessarily done anything based on the experience, but it's easy to see that your life has improved.
It's not all about useful messages or insights.
I don't see what's wrong with simply getting more pleasure out of life.
If you want to talk on the phone with your pharmacist for 20 minutes after confirming your prescription will be ready at 2PM, thats great. For someone who values efficacy and the reduction of "unnecessary" expenditure of time this would however be unacceptable.
I find myself struggling to let more of the former in my own life than the latter, but in this case I wanted to try and illustrate the *internal* dynamic I saw being expressed by the two viewpoints.
My writing was colored by my own belief of what is best in life, so it leaned towards minimizing the value of leisure, but to be clear, that wasn't the message I was trying to convey.
You don't need psychoactive drugs to have deep, earth-shattering mystical experiences, and I don't understand why one would want to rely on drugs to get them.
Maybe not.. but psychedelics seem to be the most reliable, easiest, and quickest way there.
Edit: to respond to your 'easiest' edit in -- it's only easy in the sense that the barrier for entry is lower, but 'lower barrier for entry' is optimising for quantity, not quality.
As for "quality", who's to say? Many meditators have never been heavy psychedelic users, so if they claim that meditation can get them to the same place they don't know what they're talking about.
That's not to mention that psychedelic experiences vary widely from person to person, and often even from trip to trip taken by the same person, so it's really hard to make generalizations that apply to all people, all substances, and all circumstances.
Also, some people dismiss psychedelic experiences as illusory, which to me just signals that they have nothing interesting to contribute to the conversation. I'm interested in exploring these substances and spaces, not in trying to sweep them under the rug or wishing they would go away.
Good luck trying to extract any words to describe it. Not that it can’t be done, but when you have a glimpse of more profound realities, who would expect it to be easy to articulate or execute upon?
But, in combination with weeks and months of effortful meditation and writing, outcomes can be had: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2022.01.001
Great book, one of the lesser known psychonauts
That's not to cast blame on him for the firing itself, which lands entirely on the shoulders of Harvard.
That quote originally came from Alan Watts, not Terence McKenna (who, incidentally, didn't hang up the phone until near the end of his life, when he supposedly was too scared to do more mushrooms).
Alan Watts said:
"[P]sychedelic experience is only a glimpse of genuine mystical insight, but a glimpse which can be matured and deepened by the various ways of meditation in which drugs are no longer necessary or useful. When you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope; he goes away and works on what he has seen."[1]
To which I think it was Ram Dass or Dennis McKenna who answered: "I don't hang up on my teachers."
Also, what if you forget the message (as often the states in question are ineffable and the insights one gets are not able to be carried in to ordinary waking consciousness, or not for long)... or what if there is no message, just as seeing a sunset is devoid of messages but still worth seeing? What if you consider the experience sacred or a way to connect to your god(s), the spirit world, transcendent reality, or nature? What if you use psychedelics to enhance your creativity, have fun, or treat your depression?
None of these uses fit neatly in to the narrow "message" paradigm that Watts was talking about.
[1] - https://medium.com/@allevity/they-killed-alan-watts-quote-8b...