In response to a recent post about Charles’ dilemma, readers brought up several issues that I’d like to address…before getting to Part 2. The issue of good vs. bad came up. Charles’ quest for his “true self” seemed to be based on an experience of goodness that could not be replicated without drugs (in his case, dissociatives like DXM and ketamine). But then he worried that what he was doing was not good…it wasn’t right or proper somehow. Readers also suggested that finding the “true self” is an achievement: it takes place over development — i.e, over time — and it requires hard work. Putting these ideas together, we’re stuck with a definitional matter that needs to be resolved before we can provide some advice for Charles.
Here goes:
Definition #1: the moral good.
Good means right, means socially acceptable, or valid, or productive, vs. bad, the opposite of those things. And this polarity further breaks down into detailed comparisons and ratings, like harm vs. help: if I’m not helping myself or others, then whatever I’m doing is not GOOD. Similarly, if I’m harming myself or others, that’s BAD. This already gets tricky: is harming the self necessarily morally bad? What about suicide in the case of terminal illness? What about slapping the side of your head to coach yourself against acting like an idiot? If you follow it to its logical conclusions, this kind of definition gets clunky and/or arbitrary and sometimes irrelevant; because it’s really just based on a simple formula: normativity. Following norms (either past or present, idealized or actual) gets to be the only reliable yardstick for being good. Sounds a bit boring. And perhaps irrelevant to things like…well, like taking drugs, which might harm the self a little, or a lot, in the short run, or the long run. But may also help, by opening doors that were previously closed. Yeah, boring but complicated (at least for a non-philosopher like me).
Definition #2: feeling good.
The other definition is that good = feeling good. Nothing moral or normative about it. Feeling good is easy to determine. It’s the most basic perception one can possibly have. Ask any two-year old. Without the complexity of “norms” to follow or defy, two-year olds just go with the straightforward definition: Good = happy. Bad = unhappy. And that perception of the world comes straight from their orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). This relatively primitive part of the prefrontal cortex is called “paralimbic” for good reason. It’s intimately connected to limbic structures like the amygdala and striatum. But it also serves as a sort of limbic structure itself. Cells in the OFC fire more rapidly when you eat something sweet. That’s a natural reinforcer (reward), built into our biology. But other cells in the OFC respond to “secondary reinforcers” like a sexy smile from someone you find attractive, or the steam rising from your foil-wrapped burger, or a green light. You can’t argue with your OFC’s perception of good. The OFC has been around for at least 100 million years, and it knows its job.
The developmental angle.
Little kids perceive good via definition #2. They just feel it. And besides, norm-following, i.e., the capacity for moral behaviour, does not come on line until about the age of 3 1/2 to 4 years, when children acquire what’s known as Theory of Mind, an important watershed in cognitive and social development. Before the onset of Theory of Mind, you can’t imagine what others might be thinking or feeling. You just think that everyone sees things the way you do. So kids younger than 3 1/2 can’t possibly be good in a moral way that requires seeing the impact of their actions on others. All they can do is follow rules to avoid punishment.
What’s so bad about feeling good?
Charles says he feels good according to definition #2. But that’s a child’s definition. Isn’t it distasteful because it’s indulgent and immature? Or is it spontaneous, and thus precious? Charles tells me that the “goodness” of getting high on dissociatives (e.g., ketamine and DXM) involves feeling wholeness, excitement, and spontaneity. Good on the inside. Plus — and here’s the special bonus, available now for the next 8 hours, so hurry before the offer expires! — pot and/or DXM and/or ketamine allow you to disengage from definition #1, to shuck off those normative demands. Because the obligation to follow, or at least to be concerned with, social norms breaks down when you’re on these drugs. And that’s because norms and standards make up a large part of the sense that’s held together by networks of cortical neurons, communicating through NMDA receptors. Recall that dissociatives are NMDA antagonists, which break up the orderliness of the cortex. So they break up your model of what’s moral. Pot can do the same through a different mechanism. Now put together that fundamental child’s feeling of goodness, e.g., via wholeness and spontaneity, with freedom from norms and societal constraints, and Charles gets to his “true self” — at least that’s how he sees it.
I think definition #2 is crucial for thinking about GOOD vs. BAD when it comes to drug/alcohol use. Yet we (most of us, including, no especially, ex-addicts) tend to slip into definition #1 instead. We get moral, and we tend to dismiss the very plain fact that drugs, booze, and other things to which we get addicted, feel good. At least for a while. Intrinsically good. Or else we wouldn’t keep going back to them again and again.
Feeling good is the guiding force behind children’s spontaneous behaviour, including their love, their eagerness, and their creativity (all mediated by the OFC, which develops a few years ahead of the dorsal prefrontal circuits — e.g, the dACC — which support norm-following). Feeling good is our principal, fundamental aim in approaching and understanding the world, before we learn morality. It’s bodily good, sensory good. It’s the good that comes from activating orbitofrontal circuits that evolved to keep us tuned into what’s valuable in life. Rather than take the high road of morality, I write quite a bit about the “goodness” of drugs in my book — even as I emphasize their dark side.
So, back to Charles’ dilemma: if you can knock out the blind pursuit of being good (morally, slavishly, obsessively) for those few hours, at the same time as just feeling good…well, that sounds pretty damn attractive.
Please add your own thoughts and impressions, and stay tuned for Part 2.
Leave a Reply to Dave Cancel reply