Hi John, Thanks for taking the time to read my essay and responding. I appreciate you raising the issue of, “What would the author say to survivors of ‘psychosis’ who might accuse him of romanticizing their nightmarish, hellish, deeply traumatic and chronically debilitating experiences?” I thought a lot about that and assumed it might be called out. In my first drafts, I wrote much more about the darker and painful sides of these experiences, of which I’ve seen plenty (and experienced, too). I figured it’s important to acknowledge that side of things, especially if you’re hoping to be heard on a different perspective. However, here’s where I arrived: 95% of the material and writings out there exclusively acknowledge the danger and pain and trauma of these experiences. That perspective has been given enough airtime. I would only want to include it if I was trying to devise some kind of all-encompassing “theory of psychosis”, which I hope not to be doing. What I was trying to get at in this article is not that the content of these experiences are “good” or “bad”, but that there might be an inherent ecological purpose in activating senses, regardless of the content produced by that activation. Of course, there might not be any purpose, but I think there’s evidence affirming otherwise. The content itself is another story, and yes, complicated. I certainly do not believe that anyone having overwhelming experiences of activated senses should be seen as “mystical, ecstatic, unitive, poetic properties”, as you imply I suggested, although I can see how tying this essay together with my own positive experiences may have given off that impression. I do think a lot of the stress and terror and pain that happens in these experiences is either caused, flamed, or subtly provoked by the responses of other people and systems, and also a lack of access to the wild, poverty, racism, and on and on. In other words, I lean pretty heavy on social construction theory when thinking about behavior. But even saying that, I am totally open to the idea that terror might inherently come with the package of activated senses in some instances, or might be the predominant force in someone’s experience irregardless of extrinsic responses. If someone tells me, “My psychosis sucks”, I don’t try and sprinkle fairy dust on that, nor do I think they’re missing the big picture and need to tune in and drop out, and so on. I just get curious and try to care and learn myself. So, believing there might be an ecological purpose in the state itself does not mean we should conflate that purpose with goodness, or even necessarily with “how to respond” to that particular individual in that particular circumstance. I do think, however, that allowing some notion of purpose instead of disease (or terror) might mean that people who respond to such situations might try to be a bit more open-minded and able to connect. It might also mean we might start teaching children different ways to think about these experiences, and create new cultural maps that may produce more hopeful results.