داروهاي روان‌نما و اعتبار معرفتي تجربه‌هاي عرفاني

Psychedelic Drugs and Epistemological Validity of Mystical Experiences

پيدايي تجربههاي (شبه) عرفاني در پي مصرف داروهاي رواننما (توهمزا) يكي از مستندات مهم كساني است كه اعتبار معرفتي (حجيت) تجربههاي عرفاني (مكاشفات عرفاني) را نفي كرده و با تمسك به آن مدعي شدهاند كه تجربههاي عرفاني همواره ممكن است برخاسته از حالات نابهنجار فيزيولوژيك صاحبان اين گونه تجربهها باشد و از اين رو، اين تجربهها اعتباري ندارند و نميتوان واقعنمايي آنها را تضمين كرد. در اين مقاله با بررسي ابعاد گوناگون مساله نشان دادهايم كه استدلال فوق، ناتمام است؛ چرا كه اولاً مبتني بر مسانخت تجربههاي حاصل براي مصرف‌كنندگان مواد روان‌نما با تجربههاي حاصل براي عارفان است و اين امري است كه شواهد ادعايي، قادر به اثبات آن نيست؛ ثانياً اين مسانخت، در صورت اثبات، تنها ميان آنها و تجربههاي عرفاني آفاقي است؛ ثالثاً تسري عدم اعتبار تجربههاي شبهعرفاني حاصل از مصرف اين مواد، به تجربههاي عرفاني آفاقي، فاقد دليل قابل قبول است؛ رابعاً دليل قابل قبولي بر توهم بودن تجربههاي شبهعرفاني ارايه نشده است. نقد اصل بيتفاوتي علّي استيس و توجه حكيمان مسلمان به امكان و وقوع ارتباط ادراكي با ساحتهاي باطني هستي، از ديگر مباحثي است كه اين مقاله بدان پرداخته است.

The emergence of mystical (quasi-mystical) experiences following the consumption of psychedelic drugs (hallucinogens) is one of those important proofs for their claimants to demolish epistemological validity of mystical experiences (mystical unveilings). By resorting to such deduction they try to claim that mystical experiences may always be aroused from abnormal physiological states of their experiencers, so they conclude that these experiences are not valid and cannot be confirmed that they manifest the reality. This article aims at investigating different aspects of the argument so as to show that it is deeply flawed because firstly, this argument is based on the existence of cognation between the experiences achieved by psychedelic drug users and those achieved by mystics and this is the case which cannot be proved by alleged evidences; secondly, even in case that the cognation in question is proved, it will exist between the former and those mystical experiences of extrovertive kind; thirdly, considering the extrovertive mystical experiences as invalid due to considering them as congeneric with quasi-mystical experiences achieved by psychedelic drugs is not accepted; fourthly, there is no reason represented proving the invalidity of quasi-mystical experiences. It has also been discussed in this article the criticism on the principle of “causal indifference” by Stace and also the Muslim philosophersʹ consideration toward the possibility of occurrence of perceptual connections with esoteric issues.