Content analysis Exper C13




p values (for experimentals)

Using all Using only Post-drug data (4 items): scores: "strong"


P65 Sense that an attempt to describe the experience in logical statements becomes involved in contradictory language: .016 .063

P68 Paradoxical dissolving of the subject-object dichotomy in spite of the empirical multiplicity of objects (they are still perceived as separate): .008 .016

P7 2 Paradoxical transcendence of space as defined in 68-71: - .004 .008

P7 3 Pure awareness with no empirical distinctions (i.e., one is beyond the self-consciousness of sense impressions, yet one is not unconscious .002 ,008

Follow-up data (3 items):

F73 You have been accused of logical contradiction in trying to describe the meanlngfulness of your own experience to others who were not present: (1) (1)

F25 Loss of feelings of difference from objects» .016 .032

F33 Fusion of the self into a larger undifferentiated whole» .008 .032

Content-analysis data (1 item)«

C13 Paradoxicality



which are paradoxical even in their description did show significant differences from the controls even when only the

"strong" scores were used (p less than .032). Paradoxicality was also supported implicitly by item P64, the converse of item P65. Item P64 stated that "the experience is describable by logical statements which are not contradictory" and did not show a significant difference between experimentáis and controls (p "equal to .35).

Some examples of paradoxicality from the content-

analysis data are as follows:

Experimental Subject QX:

Everything was part of the other, yet distinct in itself.

(Comment: This is an example of external unity as well as paradoxicality.)

Experimental Subject GP:

In fact, I'm -not sure I have one over-riding impression, unless it is one of a confused kind of clarity.

Experimental Subject TD:

I had a vision in which the flowing colors seemed to be mo. It was infinity, with many timelines running through it I decided then that words were adequate to describe the experience, but only if you could describe each tributary, and say the words all at once.

(Commenti The description is not only paradoxical but is also an example of the next category, alleged ineffability.)

From the consistency of statistical evidence from all methods of measurement we conclude that the experimentáis who got psilocybin experienced the phenomena of paradoxicality to the most complete degree defined by this category in our typology of the mystical consciousness.

Category VII: Alleged Ineffability As seen in Table 24, the experimentáis scored significantly higher than the controls in this category for all three methods of measurement (p less than .008) . The experimentáis had more strong ratings than the controls, as demonstrated by the distribution of scores.

All phenomena which were used to measure alleged ineffability are listed in Table 25. All individual items were significant at the .008 level and most were even more significant than this. Alleged ineffability was also supported indirectly by the nonsignificance of item F57b, "the ease of communication of your experience," which was the converse of F57a. When only the "strong" scores were used, all individual items remained significant (p less than .032) except for the content-analysis data. These were, in fact, a sparsity of statements in the accounts which, explicitly stated the difficulty of describing the experience. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the subjects were at the time actually describing their experiences as best they could. Implicit allusions to this phenomenon were more frequent.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment