Huxley's The Doors of Perception: a study guide to the reducing valve
A companion for anyone reading Huxley's 1954 mescaline essay, or about to. The briefing I wish I had, structured notes, connections to six other books, a seven-day behaviour test and 30 flash cards.
Something different from me today, and it is free.
For over a year now I have been building one of these for myself before & after every book I read and course I do.
A briefing to read before I start. Structured notes. The connections back to everything else I have read. A week-long test. A set of flash cards.
It is the machinery that turned reading from something I enjoyed and forgot into something I can still use.
Nobody has ever seen one.
This is the whole thing for Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, which at sixty pages is the shortest book on my list and possibly the one with the widest reach.
One thing to be clear about before you start.
This is a companion, not a summary, and it is not a way to get the gist without reading the book. It assumes you have read Huxley, are reading him now, or are about to read him.
The briefing at the top is written to be read before you open the book, the notes are written to sit alongside it, and the cards are written for afterwards.
If you have not read it, sixty pages is an evening. Read it tonight and use this tomorrow.
I would like to know whether it is any use to anyone other than me. If you read it, tell me what you would cut or add.
Built from my own reading and the notes and cards that came out of it.
I read this in April 2026 and wrote about it at the time. Nothing here is a summary assembled from the outside.
Before You Read
Read this before you open the book. It is about sixty pages and it will take you an evening, so the four minutes spent here is a good trade.
This is a short book with a reputation that gets in its way.
Most people who have heard of it assume it is a drug memoir. It’s not, it is a philosophical argument about perception that happens to use one afternoon in 1953 as its evidence.
Here is the claim, so you can watch it being built. Huxley thinks the brain works by subtraction rather than addition. Its job is not to produce your experience of the world but to cut an enormous amount of available information down to the small fraction that helps you stay alive. He calls the mechanism a reducing valve. The whole book stands or falls on whether that picture is right, and everything else, the mescaline, the flowers, the chair, is him trying to describe what it is like when the valve opens slightly.
Four things to watch for
First, notice that he identifies a second filter, and it is the more useful one.
Language does the same job as the nervous system. It gives you access to what other people have worked out, and in exchange it persuades you that the reduced version is all there is. This half of the argument needs no chemistry to test and you can start checking it this afternoon.
Second, watch him being honest about the costs.
This is the part readers skip. During the experience his will collapsed and he became indifferent to other people while a chair leg became overwhelming. He names that as a defect rather than a feature, and it is what separates the book from advocacy.
Third, watch where he refuses to go.
He does not argue that vision should replace reasoning, or that you should stay. He argues that both are needed, that coming back is obligatory, and that an experience you cannot carry into ordinary life is tourism. The book is considerably more cautious than the people who cite it.
Fourth, watch the drapery.
He spends a surprising stretch on painters and folds of cloth, and it reads as a digression until you see the point. Folds have no use and tell no story, so attending to them is the closest sober experience comes to perception with the practical filter relaxed.
Where it gets difficult
The middle, where he moves between the visual experience and art history without much signposting. If you lose the thread, hold on to the reducing valve and ask what each passage is telling you about the filter. That question carries you through almost all of it.
One thing to decide for yourself
The eliminative theory of the brain and the metaphysical claim about Mind at Large are separable, and Huxley moves between them smoothly. You can accept the first, which has ordinary empirical support, without accepting the second, which the book does not establish.
Noticing where he crosses from one to the other is most of what careful reading means here.
A practical suggestion
Read it in one or two sittings. It is short, the argument is cumulative, and spreading it over a fortnight will cost you the thread.
Structured Notes
The reducing valve: why perception works by subtraction
Formula: what you experience is the residue left after a filter, and the filter is doing its job.
● Huxley takes the eliminative theory of mind from Henri Bergson, in the form the Cambridge philosopher C. D. Broad gave it. The function of the brain, nervous system and sense organs is largely protective, shutting out most of what would otherwise reach you and leaving the small selection likely to be practically useful.
● He names the mechanism the reducing valve, and the unfiltered field Mind at Large. The plumbing image is doing real work. A valve does not create water, it restricts flow.
● The narrowing is presented as functional rather than as damage. An organism aware of everything could not act on any of it.
● Everything else in the book is Huxley trying to describe what happens when the valve opens slightly, and all of it is evidence for this single claim.
Where this shows up in real life
Two people leave the same meeting with accurate and incompatible accounts of it. Neither is lying. Each kept what their purpose made relevant, and the selection happened before either had anything to be honest about.
“The limits of what you notice are not the limits of what is there. They are the limits of what was useful.”
Language as the second valve, and the one you can work on
Formula: a word hands you everyone else’s experience and charges you your own attention for it.
● Huxley’s claim is that each person is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition they were born into. The benefit is inherited understanding. The price is the conviction that the reduced version is the whole.
● Recognition ends inspection. Once a thing has been filed under a name, what you meet on the next encounter is largely the file.
● This filter runs constantly and needs no chemistry to observe, which makes it the practically useful half of the book.
Where this shows up in real life
Anyone who has driven the same route for ten years has stopped looking at it and would be worse than a stranger at spotting what changed. The same goes for a colleague you decided you had understood in the first month and never updated.
“Naming something is usually the moment you stop looking at it.”
Is-ness: what Huxley meant, and what remains when usefulness drops away
Formula: strip off function, category and price, and the bare fact that a thing exists becomes overwhelming.
● Huxley reaches for Meister Eckhart’s word Istigkeit, is-ness, because ordinary English keeps sliding back into utility. A flower in normal perception is a species, a cost, a thing that needs water.
● The claim is not that the object changed. It is that the practical overlay was temporarily removed and what was always there became visible.
● The nearest everyday parallel is the rare moment when something entirely familiar looks suddenly strange and particular rather than filed.
Where this shows up in real life
Jet lag, fever and grief all produce weak versions of it. Ordinary objects turn oddly vivid, because the usual practical urgency has dropped away and nothing is pulling attention forward.
“Most of the time you are not looking at the thing. You are looking at what it is for.”
Space, time and the collapse of the will
Formula: the categories that go first are the ones survival needs most.
● Huxley reports that spatial and temporal relations stopped mattering. Where something sat and how large it was ceased to be interesting, while the fact of its existing became enormous.
● This is the filter argument from the inside. Position, distance and duration are exactly what a survival-oriented valve would prioritise, so they are exactly what drops when it loosens.
● The will went with them. The urge to do anything in particular largely disappeared, and he does not present this as a bonus.
Where this shows up in real life
Deep absorption in a problem does a mild version of the same thing. Time stops being tracked, the room stops being mapped, and the ability to act on anything outside the problem quietly disappears.
“Wider perception and effective action seem to trade against each other, which is an argument for the filter rather than against it.”
What mescaline cost Huxley, in his own words
Formula: the honesty about what was lost is what separates the book from advocacy.
● Other people stopped mattering while objects became overwhelming. He names this as a defect. A state that heightens your sense of a chair leg and flattens your interest in the people in the room is not straightforwardly an improvement.
● He compares the condition to schizophrenia, where the valve cannot be closed again. What made his few hours bearable was knowing they would end, and the ordinary shared world remaining available to return to.
● So the terror in the book is not the vision. It is the possibility of not being able to stop seeing.
Where this shows up in real life
Any state that removes the ordinary filter without an exit becomes unbearable rather than enlightening. Insomnia is the mundane version: the same thoughts, with the usual ability to stop attending to them switched off.
“The difference between a revelation and a breakdown is often just whether you can shut it off again.”
Why Huxley writes about drapery, and what painters see
Formula: the part of a picture that serves no purpose is where the quality of the looking shows.
● Huxley spends a surprising stretch on folds of cloth in painting. Folds carry no narrative and no utility, so attending to them is the closest ordinary experience comes to perception with the practical filter relaxed.
● This is his bridge from a private chemical experience to something anyone can check in a gallery, sober.
Where this shows up in real life
A usable test for any painting, and for photographs too. Look at how much attention has gone into the part of the frame that does nothing. That is where you find out whether the maker was actually looking.
What the book refuses to claim
Formula: a modest argument that is routinely remembered as a radical one.
● He does not say vision should replace reasoning. Both are needed, because perception without concepts cannot be used and concepts without perception drift free of anything real.
● He does not say you should stay. Coming back is obligatory, and the test is what changes in how you attend afterwards, not the intensity of what you saw.
● He borrows the theological phrase gratuitous grace: something unearned and unnecessary, useful if it arrives. That is a smaller claim than the book’s reputation carries.
● He treats the urge to get outside ordinary consciousness as perennial and universal, so the real question is which door, not whether to have the urge.
“The book is far more cautious than the people who cite it.”
Three separable claims in The Doors of Perception
Formula: the book makes three claims of very different strength, and they stand or fall independently.
● The eliminative theory of perception is philosophical with ordinary empirical support, and modern work on attention and expectation is broadly friendly to it. This one survives comfortably.
● The claim about Mind at Large, a field of awareness beyond the filter, is metaphysical and the book does not establish it. Huxley moves between this and the first claim fairly smoothly, and noticing the seam is most of what careful reading means here.
● The trip report is a single unrepeated unblinded first-person account by an interested party who was a novelist rather than a researcher. It is evidence of very little, and Huxley does not pretend otherwise.
“You can accept that perception is a narrowing without accepting any particular claim about what lies on the other side of it.”
Every book I read gets a study pack like this one. Subscribe and you will see which book is next.
Top Five Anchor Ideas
1. Perception works by subtraction.
The brain’s job is to cut the available down to the useful, so what reaches awareness is a residue rather than a recording.
2. Language is the second filter and the one you can act on.
A name grants inherited knowledge and charges attention in return, because recognition ends inspection.
3. What gets through is set by what you are currently aiming at.
Change the aim and the same unchanged room yields different contents.
4. Wider perception and effective agency trade against each other.
Huxley’s will collapsed as his seeing expanded, which argues for the filter’s existence rather than against it.
5. The point is the return.
An experience that cannot be carried back into ordinary life and used is tourism, and Huxley says so himself.
Connections
Each connection names the book, the author and the specific idea, so it is usable whether or not you have read the other title. Where a book is named for the first time, the title links to it.
Robert Sapolsky, Behave
Sapolsky’s method in Behave is to take a behaviour and ask what caused it one second before, then one minute, then hours, then years, then across evolutionary time, showing no single level of explanation is sufficient. That is Huxley’s filter given a mechanism and a timescale. Huxley says perception is edited before it reaches you. Sapolsky can name which systems do the editing and when. Both conclude the conscious moment arrives late and already shaped.
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Kahneman argues in Thinking, Fast and Slow that mental life runs on a fast automatic system generating impressions and a slow effortful one that mostly endorses them. Read alongside Huxley these are two stages of one process. Huxley’s valve decides what reaches awareness at all. Kahneman’s fast system decides what gets done with it once it arrives. Neither step is available to inspection while it is happening, which is why both books feel like being told something about yourself you cannot check directly.
Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson, The Elephant in the Brain
Simler and Hanson argue in The Elephant in the Brain that most behaviour is driven by motives we hide from ourselves, and that the hiding is what makes the performance convincing. Huxley’s filter is perceptual and theirs is motivational, and the shape is identical. Something is edited out before you get access to it, and the editing is invisible from inside. Huxley asks what you cannot see. They ask what you cannot admit.
Jordan Peterson, Personality and Its Transformations (Peterson Academy)
Peterson’s Personality and Its Transformations lectures argue that what you perceive is set by what you are aiming at, and demonstrate it with the invisible gorilla study, in which viewers counting basketball passes routinely fail to notice someone in a gorilla suit walk through the frame. The task set the filter, and the filter removed the gorilla. That is Huxley’s reducing valve reproduced in a laboratory, with no mescaline, and it is the strongest empirical support the book has.
Robert Greene, The Laws of Human Nature
Greene’s Law of Self-sabotage, in The Laws of Human Nature, argues that your general attitude decides what counts as evidence before conscious judgement begins, so a constricted outlook filters for threat and an expansive one for possibility, and each then finds what it was looking for. That is Huxley’s valve described from inside a personality rather than inside a nervous system, and it explains why two people in identical circumstances can accumulate genuinely different evidence about what the world is like.
Aristotle, From Logic to Life (Peterson Academy)
Aristotle’s four causes, taught in the Aristotle course, ask what a thing is made of, what form it has, what brought it about, and what it is for. Huxley’s is-ness is what remains when the fourth of those, the purpose, is removed. Read together they explain why ordinary perception is so relentlessly functional. It is organised almost entirely around final cause.
Where this sits in the rest of the reading
This book supplies the floor the others build on. If what reaches awareness is already selected by aim, then every argument about reasoning, motive and bias is operating on material that was filtered before any reasoning began. It is the shortest book on my list and the one with the widest reach.
Seven-Day Behaviour Test
One thing to do differently this week, built on Block A because it is the most testable claim in the book and needs nothing but attention.
Each day, pick one place you pass through regularly and have stopped seeing.
A room in your home, a street, a shop, the view from a window.
Spend two minutes there with one instruction: find five things you have never consciously registered.
Write them down. Five is deliberate. The first two arrive easily and the last three require the filter to actually loosen, which is the part worth doing.
Then, on the same page, write one more line: what you normally go to that place to do. That second line is the point of the exercise. It usually explains the five, because what you had been filtering out is whatever the purpose made irrelevant.
At the end of the week, look at the seven purposes rather than the thirty-five observations. The pattern in what you consistently fail to see is more informative than any individual thing you missed.
Flash Cards
30 cards covering the whole book. The questions are below, the answers come after them. That separation is deliberate: if you can see the answer while you read the question, you will recognise it, feel like you knew it, and retain nothing. Recognition is not recall, and the gap between the two is most of what this book is about.
How to use them
Work through the questions first and answer each one out loud or in writing before you scroll down. Getting one wrong is more useful than getting it right, so do not be gentle with yourself.
If you want physical cards, print this section, cut the question list into strips, and keep the answer list whole as your key. A strip in a pocket gets tested at bus stops, which is where most of the value in this actually comes from.
If you run Anki, RemNote or anything similar, the questions and answers are numbered to match so you can paste them across in pairs. Say the word and I will put a ready-made deck file somewhere you can download.
The questions
01. What is the central claim of The Doors of Perception?
02. What does Huxley mean by the reducing valve?
03. What does Huxley call the unfiltered field that the valve reduces?
04. Whose philosophy does the eliminative theory come from?
05. Where does the phrase the doors of perception come from?
06. What were the circumstances of the experience described?
07. What is Istigkeit and why does Huxley reach for the word?
08. What second filter does Huxley identify beyond the nervous system?
09. What is the practical consequence of recognition ending inspection?
10. What happened to space and time relations during the experience?
11. What happened to the will?
12. What is the most serious limitation Huxley admits about the experience?
13. How does Huxley connect the reducing valve to schizophrenia?
14. What does Huxley mean by calling the everyday world a homemade universe?
15. Why does Huxley spend so long on drapery and folds of cloth in painting?
16. What is Huxley’s argument about the universal urge to self-transcendence?
17. What does Huxley mean by gratuitous grace?
18. What does Huxley say about returning from the experience?
19. Why can direct perception not simply replace systematic reasoning?
20. What is the sequel to The Doors of Perception and what does it add?
21. What did Humphry Osmond contribute beyond supervising the session?
22. What is the practical reading of the reducing valve, with no drugs involved?
23. How should the reducing valve change how you handle disagreements about what happened?
24. What does Huxley’s account suggest about why expertise can reduce accuracy?
25. Why is the narrowness of ordinary perception not a flaw to be fixed?
26. What are the three separable claims in the book, in order of strength?
27. What is the honest limitation of the book as evidence?
28. How does Huxley’s filter relate to Sapolsky’s account of behaviour in Behave?
29. What experiment does Peterson use to demonstrate Huxley’s claim without any chemistry?
30. What is the single portable question from The Doors of Perception?
The answers
Bold line first, then the expansion. If you got the bold line you have the card. The expansion is what should come back once the trigger fires.
01. The brain is eliminative, not productive. Its job is to cut down what reaches you, not to generate it.
Perception works by subtraction. Everything available is filtered down to the fraction useful for staying alive, and what you call the world is the residue. The practical consequence is that the limits of your awareness are not the limits of what is there.
02. The brain and nervous system acting as a restrictor, admitting only the trickle of awareness that survival requires.
The image is plumbing rather than mysticism. A valve does not create water, it limits flow. An organism aware of everything would be too overwhelmed to act, so the narrowing is a feature.
03. Mind at Large.
The term names whatever is available before filtering. Huxley is deliberately vague about its nature, and the structural claim that perception is a narrowing can be held without accepting any particular metaphysics about what lies beyond it.
04. Henri Bergson, in the form given to it by the Cambridge philosopher C. D. Broad.
Broad’s restatement is the hinge of the essay. The function of brain, nervous system and sense organs is largely protective, shutting out most of what would otherwise be perceived. Huxley takes a philosophical claim and puts it to an experiential test.
05. William Blake, in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
Blake’s line is that if the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is, infinite. Huxley takes the phrase as a thesis rather than a decoration, and argues the doors are shut for good reason.
06. A single mescaline session in May 1953, at Huxley’s home in Los Angeles, supervised by the psychiatrist Humphry Osmond.
Worth holding because it sets the evidential weight honestly. One supervised first-person report, written by a novelist rather than a researcher, and Huxley is explicit about that rather than hiding it.
07. Is-ness. Meister Eckhart’s term for existence perceived directly rather than as a category.
Ordinary English keeps sliding into usefulness. A flower in normal perception is a species, a price, a thing to water. Istigkeit names what remains when all of that recedes and only the fact of existing is left.
08. Language. Each person is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition they were born into.
Words grant access to what others have worked out, which is the benefit. The cost is that they persuade you the reduced version is all there is, because anything with a ready name stops being examined.
09. Once a thing is filed under a name, what you see next time is largely the file.
Habit and expertise both trade accuracy for speed. Someone who has driven the same route for ten years has stopped looking at it and is genuinely worse than a stranger at noticing what changed.
10. They stopped mattering. Attention moved from measure and location to being and meaning.
Position, distance and duration are exactly what a survival-oriented filter would prioritise, which is why they are the first to drop when it loosens. The filter argument seen from the inside.
11. It collapsed. The urge to do anything in particular almost disappeared.
Huxley treats this as a defect rather than a bonus. Perception widened and agency narrowed together, which suggests the two are linked and that the filter is partly what makes action possible.
12. Indifference to other people. Persons stopped mattering while objects became overwhelming.
He does not present this as neutral. A state that heightens your sense of a chair leg while flattening your interest in the people in the room is not obviously an improvement, and saying so is what separates the book from advocacy.
13. As a valve that cannot be closed again. The terror is not the vision but the inability to return.
The comparison keeps the book from being an advertisement. What he could stop after a few hours is, for some people, permanent, because the refuge of the ordinary shared world is no longer available.
14. A construction assembled for usefulness, held in common because it works rather than because it is complete.
Its value is that it lets people coordinate and agree about what is there. Its cost is that a working model is easily mistaken for the whole territory, and almost nothing in daily life prompts you to check.
15. Folds carry no narrative and no utility, so attending to them is the nearest sober equivalent of perception with the filter relaxed.
This is his bridge from a private chemical experience to something anyone can check in a gallery. A usable test for any picture: see how much attention went into the part of the frame that does nothing.
16. The desire to get outside ordinary consciousness is perennial and found everywhere, so the real question is which door.
He points to how consistently people across cultures reach for something that alters awareness. Dismissing the urge as weakness misreads how widespread it is, and the choice is between better and worse routes.
17. Something given rather than earned. Not necessary, but useful if it arrives.
He borrows the theological term to place the experience precisely. Not a requirement for living well, not a reward for merit, an unearned opening that can be used or wasted. A far more modest claim than the book’s reputation suggests.
18. Coming back is obligatory, and the person who returns is not quite the person who left.
He is firm that the point is not to stay. A vision that cannot be carried into ordinary life and acted on is tourism. The test is what changes in how you attend afterwards, not the intensity of what you saw.
19. Both are needed. Perception without concepts cannot be used, and concepts without perception drift free of anything real.
This is the balance the book is often assumed to reject. The reasoning mind is what lets an experience be examined and applied afterwards, and Huxley argues for holding both rather than choosing the vision.
20. Heaven and Hell, published in 1956, which extends the argument to the frightening end of the same territory.
Worth knowing because the first book is often read as uniformly positive. The companion volume deals with visionary experience that is terrifying rather than beautiful, and makes clear the door opens both ways.
21. He later coined the word psychedelic, in correspondence with Huxley.
A marker of how early the book sits. The vocabulary that now surrounds the subject did not yet exist, which is part of why Huxley leans on Blake, Eckhart and Bergson rather than on clinical language.
22. What you notice is set by what you are currently trying to do.
Change the aim and different things become visible in the same unchanged room. Walk a familiar street looking for somewhere to sit and you will suddenly see benches, walls and steps you have passed for years.
23. Two people can report the same event accurately and differently, because they were filtering for different things.
If attention is set by aim, a dispute about what occurred in a meeting is often not about honesty. Each person kept what their purpose made relevant. The useful question is what each was watching for.
24. An expert perceives their model of the situation rather than the situation.
The model is what makes them fast, and speed is usually what you are paying for. The cost appears when the situation has quietly changed and the model has not, which is when a competent newcomer sometimes sees what the expert cannot.
25. Because the narrowing is what makes action possible. Full awareness and effective agency trade against each other.
Huxley’s own report supports this, since the will collapsed as perception widened. The realistic aim is not to remove the filter but to know it is there and open it deliberately, when nothing needs doing.
26. The eliminative theory of perception, the metaphysical claim about Mind at Large, and the trip report.
The first has ordinary empirical support and survives comfortably. The second is metaphysical and the book does not establish it. The third is a single unblinded account and is evidence of very little. Huxley moves between them smoothly, and noticing the seam is most of what careful reading means here.
27. A single, unrepeated, unblinded first-person report by an interested party.
Huxley is not making a scientific claim and does not pretend to. The philosophical argument can be assessed separately from the experience, and the fair reading treats them independently.
28. Same claim at different resolutions. Huxley says perception is edited before it reaches you. Sapolsky names which systems do the editing and when.
Both conclude that the conscious moment arrives late and already shaped. Huxley gives the phenomenology, Sapolsky the mechanism and the timescale, and neither leaves much room for the idea of unmediated experience.
29. The invisible gorilla study, which he cites in the Personality and Its Transformations lectures.
Viewers counting basketball passes routinely fail to see someone in a gorilla suit walk through the frame. The task set the filter, and the filter removed the gorilla. It is the strongest empirical support the book has and it required no drugs at all.
30. What is my current aim filtering out?
It works without any of the book’s machinery. Before a decision or a difficult conversation, naming what you are optimising for tells you what you are likely to miss, because the filter is set by the aim whether or not you have said it out loud.
The other packs
This one is free and stays free. It is the whole thing, nothing held back, and it is here so you can see exactly what you would be getting before you spend anything.
The others are downloads rather than web pages, and they carry the card formats this one cannot:
Two honest differences. Huxley is a much shorter book, so this is a shorter pack. And because it sits on a web page rather than in a download, it has no Anki deck and no printable sheets. Everything else is the same, built the same way, to the same standard.
The reading and the arguments are mine. I write here to find out whether I have understood what I read, because explaining something is the cheapest way to discover whether you actually understood it or only recognised it.
AI is the other half of that. I argue with it, it pushes back, and what you are reading is what survived. English is not my first language, so it also helps me produce the clean version.
Nothing goes out that I could not defend if you asked.
All good. But the most important takeaway for me was in a letter he wrote afterwards. I’m paraphrasing because I read it very long ago. He said something like, I experienced the beatific vision, it was all there as the saints described it…on the other hand it could have been a…mental breakdown. Google search says it was a letter to the Salisbury Times. It wasn’t just the Isness of the chair leg and the flannel folds, it was that they led him to that beatific vision, to seeing the infinite and absolute, the All and the One, the universal in the particular. In “The Trip to the Moon Episode” of my novel, Divine Madness - The Quantum Mechanics of the Soul, the protagonist and his girlfriend (future wife), at her urging, take a mescaline trip as part of her research on her senior thesis project, using chaos theory to understand the nature of God.
All good. But the most important takeaway for me was in a letter he wrote afterwards. I’m paraphrasing because I read it very long ago. He said something like, I experienced the beatific vision, it was all there as the saints described it…on the other hand it could have been a…mental breakdown. Google search says it was a letter to the Salisbury Times. It wasn’t just the Isness of the chair leg and the flannel folds, it was that they led him to that beatific vision, to seeing the infinite and absolute, the All and the One, the universal in the particular. In “The Trip to the Moon Episode” of my novel, Divine Madness - The Quantum Mechanics of the Soul, the protagonist and his girlfriend (future wife), at her urging, take a mescaline trip as part of her research on her senior thesis project, using chaos theory to understand the nature of God.