> As negative as the experience was, in some ways I am glad I had it, because it gave me a much deeper understanding of where my mind could go - both positive and negative.
So is it still appropriate to consider this a “bad” trip? It’s a serious question; psychedelics are experiencing a resurgence in clinical interest precisely because of their persistent effects, quite apart from the acute trip experience itself. One might assume that a trip saturated in negative affect might leave a person worse off than before, but it is clearly more complex than that. Perhaps it is akin to the difference between post-traumatic stress vs. growth, and proper management of set/setting/aftercare can promote the latter over the former.
You raise an interesting point and perhaps it is both. I think it’s possible to experience negative or awful things and still grow - silver linings and all that. Does that make it good though? A much more serious example could be someone that survives cancer and now has a new found appreciation for life. I’m not sure that makes it “good” even though there were some positive outcomes. The difference of course is that I was never in any danger - though in the experience I certainly didn’t know that.
I am unsure about persistent long term negative outcomes from psychedelics - you bough I know several people that tried them once, had a rough experience and never touched them again.
So is it still appropriate to consider this a “bad” trip? It’s a serious question; psychedelics are experiencing a resurgence in clinical interest precisely because of their persistent effects, quite apart from the acute trip experience itself. One might assume that a trip saturated in negative affect might leave a person worse off than before, but it is clearly more complex than that. Perhaps it is akin to the difference between post-traumatic stress vs. growth, and proper management of set/setting/aftercare can promote the latter over the former.