DRUGS AND THE UNIVERSITY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

A hypothetical William James would have to be barred from lecturing in the new William James Behavioral Sciences building if the University were to follow the spirit of the CRIMSON'S dictum that "Leary's attitude toward mind disqualifies him from membership in a university....'

James, like Leary, was concerned with investigating exceptional mental states. "The whole drift of my education," he wrote, "goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one of the many worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for life also..."

Certainly, research into the subjective reality of abnormal mental states could lead to a better understanding of many objectively important non-verbal states such as love, faith, and conversion. The writings of Durkheim and Weber were produced because of a realization of the importance of subjective states of mind. Perhaps knowledge such as Leary might provide could fill a blind spot concerning our inadequate notion of the type of transcendental subjective experience which has not only been the focus of traditional Western religion and many Asian cultures, but which also plays an important role is such diverse modern sociological phenomena as the growth of fascism, the existence of juvenile gangs, and the exceptional dedication of some individuals to a strictly scientific attitude. Robert N. Sollod '64.

Ed. Note: If "the Inspiration phase of Intellectual development" which Mr. Newlis emphasizes is not to become dissociated from intellectual development itself, if creativity is to be more than schizoid fantasy, there must be recourse to the grubbily operational world of mind, to the social conventions of language. Leary steps boldly into the world of the ineffable, but scorns to return. The original editorial should have made clearer this implcation of Leary's attitude toward mind.

Mr. Sollod neglects to observe that while William James would undertake to lecture on abnormal mental states induced by drugs, Leary, because of his estimate of the mind, probably would not. At one point in their research, Leary and his associates found themselves faced with this alternative: either they would try to keep the (scientific) world abreast of their experience and results, they would try to communicate experiences which resist verbalization, or they would plunge ahead alone into uncharted mental states, and ignore communication. They chose the latter. Knowledge such as Leary might provide would undoubtedly be valuable but he will not provide it because he regards the tools of the mind, including learned language, as unimportant.