Talk:The Doors of Perception
|The Doors of Perception received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
From the article:
- This must be similar to how manic-depressive people feel and helps to understand them and their way of perceiving and reacting to their environment.
Really? Cite, please?
To be added:
- Mention of walt disney's involvement with Aldous Huxley? Is this just a rumor, or are there any reputable sources avalible?
While I'm sure Jim Morrison was familiar with this book, I'm also pretty sure he knew Blake, so without a citation I'm not sure if it's clear that he named The Doors after this book or after the quotation from Blake's poem. Does anyone have a citation for that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Doorsofperce.jpg
Image:Doorsofperce.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
- although i too question the necessity of the image. it is stated, "the image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (the book). it illustrates educational articles about the book from which the cover illustration was taken." however, is the "visual identification of the book" really pertinent, and belonging to the article? Twipley (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't much like this article
Because it taught me nothing about the Doors of Perception. Where is the summary? You just have a few quotes written by Huxley himself. Please, a synopsis. What is Aldy's philosophy in this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanpatnaude (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
did Huxley write this while ON mescaline?
The quotes are rather...obscure, not to mention verbose. It sounds like he wrote it while high on whatever drug he was taking (mescaline or otherwise). Or perhaps he did write it while sober, but no one who has taken such perception altering drugs could possibly understand what he's really trying to say. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In the appended reference section on Humphry Osmond, it is stated:
<<<<In 1953 Osmond provided English author Aldous Huxley with a dose of mescaline. As a result of his experience, Huxley produced an enthusiastic book called The Doors of Perception, describing the look of the Hollywood Hills and his reactions to artwork while under the influence. Though Osmond is not named, it is believed[who?] that he is referred to in the book.>>>
Although this commonly ascribed attribution that Osmond gave Huxley the impetus to write Doors of Perception, to my knowledge this is not correct....My understanding of the situation, of which I have first hand knowledge based on a conversation with Dr. Kluver, is that Huxley was inspired to write Brave New World on the basis of direct conversation, advice, discussion, and recommendation (to try mescaline) by Dr. Heinrich Kluver. Kluver had written "Mescal and Mechanisms of Hallucination" in 1929-based on personal trial and observation of mescaline induced hallucination. Kluver was also the direct instigation (and so credited) for Weston La Barre to write "the Peyote Cult" as a thesis in 1938 (and who later wrote the superb "Ghost Dance Religion"). Dr. Kluver was also the principal inspiration who persuaded Richard Evan Schultes to enter the field of ethnobotany (per personal conversation with Schultes)....This academic chain of events is a far more cogent explanation for the true genesis and origin of Doors of Perception than the Osmond thread. It is probably Kluver that Huxley referenced without specifically naming him....I did not discuss at the time with Kluver whether he may have given Huxley a sample of mescaline, although Kluver was a profound scholar and experimentalist as well as being a specialist expert in the chemistry, pharmacology, and behavioral effects of psychoactive phenethylamines, and definitely had a supply of pure mescaline on hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta 77 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
blake's original quote wording
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."
-- i've reverted "through" to "thro'," so as to reflect the way blake chose to write it in his original manuscript. however, i still wonder if it should be written as "thro'" or as "through," and thought i could call for some opinions here. Twipley (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
i think in order for that section to be neutral, smith's views on zaehner's criticisms should be included, as observed there: http://www.psychedelic-library.org/hsmith.htm. Twipley (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- nice to have "fell in," then. :)
- the following might have to be taken into account (so as to attain neutrality of the section):
- "The principle of causal indifference is this: If X has an alleged mystical experience P1 and Y has an alleged mystical experience P2, and if the phenomenological characteristics of P1 entirely resemble the phenomenological characteristics of P2 so far as can be ascertained from the descriptions given by X and Y, then the two experiences cannot be regarded as being of two different kinds—for example, it cannot be said that one is a 'genuine' mystical experience while the other is not—merely because they arise from dissimilar causal conditions" (Stace, 1960, p. 29); psychedelics "can induce religious experiences indistinguishable from ones that occur spontaneously." (Smith, 1964)
- - Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W.. A., McCann, U., & Jesse, R. (2006). Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance, “Psychopharmacology,” Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
- - Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and Philosophy, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
- - Smith, H. (1964). Do Drugs Have Religious Import?, “The Journal of Philosophy,” Vol. LXI, No. 18.
Looks good, but I think we must be careful here to include specific responses to Zaehner's criticisms of Huxley's Doors....rather than just general discussion of the validity of psychedelics as a cause of religious experience - something that could be discussed elsewhere. Huston Smith's article attempts to make arguments on Huxley's behalf, but I'm not entirely sure if Stace is engaged with the Huxley/Zaehner debate. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- you're right. if those infos would have to be included, it would mostly be in a section else than in zaehner's, as to my mind smith is the only one of the mentioned authors engaged in the involved debate. Twipley (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Most important quote
- You are the most articulate guinea pig that any scientist could hope to engage.
It is written in this article that the book was published in 1954. However, it also says that the experiment that Huxley is talking about happened during October, 1955 (this date also appears in Laura Huxley's Timeless Moment--and might be inaccurate). One of those two dates must be wrong. But which one? (2/19/2013 - 3:21PM - USA)
- Pub date is definitely 1954, see . The other date doesn't have to be wrong. The next edition may have been a revised one. Yworo (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)