Elias: I still am curious to hear what your interpretation of the LSD study was.
[My reply:] (1) I hear that people in hell want ice water. (2) When I was the one asking for help, were you one of the few who even tried?
Elias: I was genuinely just interested in discussion of this topic. But...
[My reply:] My motto = active research & informed opinion. Why would I be interested in discussing it with you?
Elias: I think that your last two comments have been rather discourteous, frankly. As I said, I was merely interested to hear your reasoning on the subject. I think this easily could have been a friendly exchange instead, and I regret it could not have gone as such.
[My final, long reply ensues.]
I understand your position, but I'm asking you to understand mine: what kind of person do you think I'd be willing to make time to discuss Buddhism with? A certain kind of person, who demonstrates a certain kind of sophistication, correct?
I get 70,000 views per month, minimum: not all of those people want to talk to me (and, BTW, they may be 30,000 people, watching more than two videos each, etc.)…
…but there are plenty of people who do want to talk to me.
There are plenty of people who PRESUME that I want to take the time to find peer-reviewed articles FOR THEIR INTEREST, FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE…
Whereas they wouldn't presume to impose on a university professor's time to this extent (not even if they're paying $5000 to take the course, etc. …i.e., the professor probably should take the time to answer questions from students, and fish around to contrast scientific articles in this way).
People in hell want ice water:
You've told me what you wanted out of this situation.
You've never considered what I wanted.
You can look back over this correspondence and feel that you've never been an asshole. I'm telling you, from my perspective, you're an asshole, and I have to deal with people like you EVERY DAY.
People who say, "Well, I haven't even done a 5 minute google search on this topic, and I've never read a single book about it, but I'm going to write in and tell you that you're wrong (about brain damage caused by marijuana, about the health benefits of meditation, etc. etc., any given topic)…"
"And now I'm going to presume to impose on your time by demanding that you present me with peer-reviewed literature as evidence, and even that you hold my hand and explain its significance to me…"
(Something Eisel's professors never did to help him, and that would be extraordinary --although not impossible-- for a student to expect even from a highly-paid professor)
"…AND IF YOU DON'T, naturally, I'll complain that you're some kind of charlatan / you can't accept criticism / you're unwilling to debate any given topic any random member of the audience is interested in, and therefore you're morally inferior TO ME."
(And, again, the "me" in the equation is a completely anonymous member of the audience who hasn't distinguished themselves by making any effort at "active research", nor in presenting an informed opinion.)
You must, both, have some general sense of what I'm reading, and what I'm trying to do with my time, from following the channel and/or this discussion forum, hm?
Do you think (e.g.) that I want to stop what I'm doing and pull together MRI data (and peer-reviewed research) to challenge what Sam Harris says about LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs?
Now allow me to ask:
Why don't YOU offer to do the research?
Why don't YOU offer to help ME, instead of vice-versa? […]