Narcocrasis

1The medium becomes the ground

People who are dependent on a drug often describe not a state but a world. Mornings are grey, other pleasures are flat, the body is restless, and the drug is the one thing that makes it right. From inside, this does not feel like a condition imposed by the drug. It feels like the way things are, with the drug as the fix.

McLuhan's central claim about media was that their real effects are of exactly this kind. A medium reshapes the balance of the senses, and because the new balance becomes the environment we live inside, we stop perceiving it. What we notice is the content: the story on television, the message in the letter. The medium itself becomes ground.

This paper argues that dependence-type addiction has the same structure, and that the resemblance is more than an analogy: the two ideas share a physiological ancestry. McLuhan built his theory of media on the stress research of Hans Selye. Addiction neuroscience built its most influential model, Koob and Le Moal's allostatic account, on the same tradition. In that model, repeated drug use shifts the brain's hedonic set point and recruits stress systems into a persistent "anti-reward" state. The drug does not become invisible; it becomes the most salient thing in the world. What becomes invisible is the shifted baseline against which it shines.

We call that configuration narcocrasis: from Greek narkē, the numbness McLuhan saw in the myth of Narcissus, and krasis, the ancient word for a tempered mixture, the root of "idiosyncrasy." It extends the vocabulary of an earlier paper in this series, Sensory Syncrasis, which argued that McLuhan's "sense ratios" were a literal claim about how the nervous system weights its channels. Narcocrasis is a particular, persistent setting of that configuration. Recovery is its reversal, which we call anacrasis, re-tempering.

The claims are made in order of confidence. First, McLuhan and the allostatic model of addiction descend from the same physiology, and McLuhan's "counter-irritant" and "numbness" are early names for what Koob calls negative reinforcement. Second, in dependence-type addiction, the anti-reward state works as an unperceived medium and the drug as its content. Third, two distinct pharmacological strategies act on that medium: one reveals it, one turns it down.

The scope is deliberately limited. The argument concerns dependence-type addiction, where withdrawal and negative affect are central: opioids, alcohol and escalated stimulant use. It does not claim every addiction runs on negative reinforcement, and it extends to behavioural addictions only by analogy. Linking McLuhan's sense ratios and figure/ground to the neurobiology of addiction is, as far as we have found, this paper's own contribution.

2McLuhan's physiology: Narcissus as narcosis

The fourth chapter of Understanding Media (1964), “The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis,” contains McLuhan's most explicitly physiological argument. He reads the myth against its usual meaning. Narcissus does not fall in love with himself; he fails to recognise the reflection as himself at all. The extension of his own image numbs him to the fact that it is an extension. McLuhan connects the name to narkē, numbness, a folk etymology that goes back to antiquity.

He then grounds the myth in medicine:

“Medical researchers like Hans Selye and Adolphe Jonas hold that all extensions of ourselves, in sickness or in health, are attempts to maintain equilibrium.”

Under stress, he writes, the nervous system protects itself by cutting off what it cannot bear:

“In the physical stress of superstimulation of various kinds, the central nervous system acts to protect itself by a strategy of amputation or isolation of the offending organ, sense, or function.”

This is the source of his term "autoamputation" and of the claim that every technology extends one part of us while numbing it. Read physiologically, it is a statement about the senses being re-weighted under stress: a sense ratio changed to protect equilibrium.

Two further passages bear directly on addiction. The first introduces the counter-irritant:

“As counter-irritant, the image produces a generalized numbness or shock that declines recognition. Self-amputation forbids self-recognition.”

The second places drink inside that economy:

“Whereas pleasure is a counter-irritant (e.g., sports, entertainment, and alcohol), comfort is the removal of irritants.”

This is a remarkable sentence to find in a 1964 book about media. It distinguishes relief that comes from overriding discomfort with a stronger sensation from relief that comes from removing the cause. Addiction medicine would later build one of its central models on exactly that distinction: negative reinforcement, in which a drug is taken less for pleasure than to override a discomfort the drug itself has created.

A note on sources

McLuhan's science was looser than his structure. Adolphe Jonas, whom he pairs with Selye, published Irritation and Counterirritation: A Hypothesis about the Autoamputative Property of the Nervous System (1962) with Vantage Press, a subsidy publisher. The term "autoamputation" is Jonas's; attributing it to Selye as well is McLuhan's own conflation. Richard Cavell (McLuhan in Space, 2002)3 identifies the encounter with Jonas as the moment McLuhan's idea that extension is also amputation took shape.

This paper does not depend on Jonas. It depends on Selye, whose stress physiology is mainstream, and on the line of research that runs from Selye to the modern neuroscience of addiction. McLuhan was right about the structure and careless about his authorities. The aim here is to give his structure a sound physiological lineage.

3A shared lineage

McLuhan and modern addiction neuroscience are not strangers who happen to resemble each other. They are cousins, descended from the same physiological tradition.

The common ancestor is Hans Selye. In the 1930s to 1950s, Selye described how the body responds to sustained stress: an alarm phase, a phase of resistance in which the body adapts at a cost, and eventually exhaustion. His popular book The Stress of Life (1956) carried the idea far outside medicine. McLuhan read Selye and built his account of media as stressors and numbing adaptations on it.

The medical line ran on. In 1988, Peter Sterling and Joseph Eyer proposed allostasis, "stability through change." Where homeostasis describes a body returning to fixed set points, allostasis describes a body that shifts its set points in anticipation of demand. Sterling later described allostasis as predictive regulation: the brain anticipates needs and adjusts the body ahead of them. Bruce McEwen added the idea of allostatic load, the cumulative wear of keeping those adjustments in place for too long.

In 2001, George Koob and Michel Le Moal applied allostasis to addiction. Their formulation is the hinge of this paper:

“The allostatic state represents a chronic deviation of reward set point.”

The line from Selye to Koob runs through stress, adaptation at a cost, and a shifted baseline that the organism comes to defend. McLuhan's line from Selye runs through stress, protective numbing, and a new sensory balance that becomes the unperceived environment. Both describe a system that adapts to a stressor by changing itself, and then treats the changed state as normal. Shared ancestry does not make the two the same. The branches have grown far apart, and the rest of this paper has to show the match rather than assume it. But it means the mapping is a reunion of related ideas, not a metaphor laid over neuroscience.

4The allostatic model

Opponent processes

The allostatic model grew from an older idea. In 1974, Richard Solomon and John Corbit proposed that every strong emotional reaction triggers an opposing one. A pleasant drug effect (the "a-process") is followed by an unpleasant counter-reaction (the "b-process"). With repetition, the a-process weakens and the b-process grows, so that the person increasingly takes the drug not to feel good but to stop feeling bad.

The cycle and its circuits

Koob and colleagues describe addiction as a three-stage cycle, each stage tied to a brain system (Koob & Volkow, 2016)8:

1. 1Binge and intoxication, centred on the basal ganglia and dopamine.
2. 2Withdrawal and negative affect, centred on the extended amygdala, where stress systems are recruited.
3. 3Preoccupation and anticipation, centred on the prefrontal cortex, where craving and loss of control arise.

The second stage carries the weight of this paper. As use continues, the brain's reward function declines and its stress systems, including corticotropin-releasing factor and dynorphin, become more active. Koob calls this the "dark side" of addiction, an anti-reward system that opposes the drug's effect and persists when the drug is absent.

Hyperkatifeia

Koob's current name for the resulting state is hyperkatifeia, a heightened sensitivity to negative emotion during withdrawal (Koob, 2020; 2021)9. He argues it can extend well into abstinence, and that it is what drives continued use through negative reinforcement. A recent review on alcohol states the core idea plainly: “These changes in set point represent hedonic allostasis.”

Evidence and its limits

The cleanest evidence for a shifted set point comes from rats. Ahmed, Kenny, Koob and Markou (2002)10 measured how much electrical brain stimulation rats needed to find rewarding. As cocaine intake escalated, the threshold rose, and it stayed raised after the cocaine stopped. That is close to a direct measurement of a hedonic baseline drifting.

In humans the evidence is consistent but indirect. Brain imaging shows reduced dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability in methamphetamine dependence (Lee and colleagues, 2009)11 and in other substance use disorders. People in protracted abstinence often report anhedonia, a flatness of ordinary pleasure. Scales designed to measure hyperkatifeia are now entering clinical trials.

Two limits should be stated. First, most of the mechanism has been worked out in animals, and human data show consistency rather than proof. Second, medicines designed to block the stress systems at the heart of the anti-reward model have largely failed in human trials. The "dark side" is better supported as an account of experience and behaviour than as a specific target for drugs. This paper relies on the first, not the second.

5Relocating the ground

The natural first version of this argument treats the drug as the medium that fades into the background of a user's life. The allostatic model shows why that is backwards.

In dependence, the drug never becomes ground. It becomes the most vivid figure in the person's world: cues for it command attention, thoughts return to it, and its absence is felt everywhere. What fades from perception is something else: the shifted baseline. The raised reward threshold, the recruited stress systems and the persistent low-grade discomfort stop registering as a state the drug has produced. They register as how the world is.

This is precisely McLuhan's structure. A medium's effect is a change in the balance of the senses and the environment of experience. Because that change becomes the environment, it is not perceived. What is perceived is the content. In narcocrasis:

McLuhan also held that “the content of any medium is always another medium.” That holds here too. The drug is itself a medium, a pharmakon, acting on the senses. Its content, in turn, is the person's own sensorium, played back restored for a few hours. The nesting is McLuhan's logic, not a stretch of it.

This relocation explains something the drug-as-medium version could not: why people in dependence commonly report that the drug makes them feel "normal." Normal is the right word. The drug does not add a pleasure; it returns the person to a baseline that has become unavailable without it. The ground has moved, and the figure is the only thing that can briefly put it back.

6The body that cannot update

If the allostatic state is a medium, its most direct channel is the body's sense of itself: interoception, the perception of heartbeat, breath, gut and internal tension. Three lines of evidence connect addiction to this channel.

The insula

The insula is the brain region most associated with representing bodily states. In 2007, Naqvi and colleagues reported that smokers who suffered strokes damaging the insula often quit easily and without urges, as if the body had forgotten it wanted to smoke. The best follow-up, a prospective study of 156 hospitalised smokers, 38 with insula damage, found lower withdrawal on seven of eight measures, including craving, anxiety and anger, and higher odds of staying abstinent (Abdolahi and colleagues, 2015)13. A meta-analysis of smoking after stroke also links insula damage to higher quit rates.

The finding is not unanimous. One study found no relationship, and damage to the basal ganglia also raises quit rates, so the insula is not uniquely responsible. But the pattern is consistent enough to say that bodily self-representation is part of what keeps the urge alive.

Precision that will not adjust

Researchers at the Laureate Institute for Brain Research asked people to sense their own heartbeat, then made the signal stronger by having them hold their breath. Healthy participants adjusted: under the perturbation, they gave more weight to their heart signals. People with depression, anxiety, eating disorders and substance use disorders did not (Smith and colleagues, 2020; 2021)14. In the terms of a computational model, they failed to update the precision they assigned to their own body.

This is the most important finding for this paper's framework. The problem is not simply poor bodily awareness. It is a configuration that does not change when the body does: a fixed setting of the inside channel. That is narcocrasis at the level of measurement. The finding is shared across several conditions, so it is not unique to addiction, and the studies are cross-sectional.

Craving as inference

Gu and Filbey (2017)15 proposed that craving is a belief about the body: a conclusion the brain draws by combining an expectation (the drug relieves this discomfort) with the bodily evidence of discomfort. In related work, smokers' beliefs about whether they had received nicotine changed both their craving and their insula activity. Gu (2018) later modelled why craving can intensify during early abstinence and fade slowly: the expectation has become so precise that new evidence moves it only gradually.

Taken together, these lines describe a body whose self-perception has been fixed around the drug. The ground is not only emotional. It is felt in the body, and the body has stopped revising what it feels.

7Narcocrasis across the five dimensions

The first paper in this series described sensory syncrasis as a configuration with five dimensions. Narcocrasis is one particular setting of all five. The table below maps the addiction evidence onto them. The mapping is interpretation, not a finding; each row names the evidence it leans on and how firmly.

The figure and ground can be stated in one sentence. In narcocrasis, the anti-reward configuration on gain, inside–outside balance and persistence becomes the ground, against which the drug, a figure on sense ratio and integration, stands out with extreme salience. Because the ground is not perceived, the person attributes the relief to the figure, as McLuhan said of the content of every medium.

8Where narcocrasis sits among theories of addiction

Addiction science has several competing accounts. Narcocrasis does not replace them. It describes the background condition several of them assume, and it has one real rival.

The rival: incentive sensitization

Robinson and Berridge (1993)16 argued that drugs sensitize the brain's "wanting" system without increasing "liking." Cues become magnetic even when the drug no longer brings much pleasure, and relapse can occur long after withdrawal has ended. This is the strongest challenge to any account built on negative states, because it explains craving without them.

The two can coexist. Incentive sensitization describes the figure: the drug and its cues gaining salience. Narcocrasis describes the ground: the background state against which they stand out. Sensitized figure on shifted ground is a coherent picture. But some addictions, and some relapses, may run mainly on sensitization, and this paper does not claim otherwise.

Allies

Goal-directed choice under negative affect. Hogarth (2020)17 reviewed the evidence for habit-based accounts of addiction and found it weaker than usually assumed. He argues instead that “negative states powerfully increase expected drug value acutely outweighing abstinence goals.” Choice stays intact; the ground it is made against has shifted. That is narcocrasis stated in the vocabulary of decision science.

Embodied predictive processing. Miller, Kiverstein and Rietveld (2020)18 describe addiction “not as a brain disease, but rather as a breakdown in the dynamics of the wider agent-environment system.” Theirs is the closest existing account to a McLuhan-style reading, though it does not use figure and ground.

Social context. Venniro and colleagues (2018)19 gave rats addicted to heroin or methamphetamine a choice between the drug and social interaction with another rat. They chose social contact, regardless of dose or how addicted they were, and choosing it reduced later craving. Delaying social access brought drug choice back. The ground, on this evidence, is partly social. The famous "Rat Park" studies of the 1970s pointed the same way, but they failed direct replication and are better treated as a parable than as evidence.

Disease or choice

The long debate over whether addiction is a brain disease or a choice assumes the problem lives in one place. Even defenders of the disease model concede that brain imaging findings are not specific and are mostly cross-sectional (Heilig and colleagues, 2021)20. Epidemiological surveys find that most people who meet criteria for a substance use disorder eventually remit, many without treatment (Heyman, 2013)40.

A medium is neither a disease nor a choice. It is a relation between an organism and its environment. Narcocrasis places the problem in that relation: a configuration set by drug, body and setting together, and therefore one that can be changed by acting on any of them. High natural remission is what this view expects, not an anomaly.

9Two routes back

If narcocrasis is a medium, there are two ways to act on it. One is to make it visible, so it can be changed. The other is to turn it down without revealing it. Current pharmacology offers examples of both.

McLuhan's anti-environment

McLuhan thought environments could not be seen from inside. “The really total and saturating environments are invisible,” he wrote in 1967 (Perspecta 11). They become visible only through what he called an anti-environment: a counter-situation that throws the environment into relief. For McLuhan, this was the role of the artist. He put it most memorably in the line widely attributed to War and Peace in the Global Village (1968): fish know nothing of water, because they have no anti-environment that would let them perceive it.

McLuhan also connected the electric environment to psychedelics. In his 196923 Playboy interview he described LSD as “a way of miming the invisible electronic world,” one that “releases a person from acquired verbal and visual habits.” He added that he had never taken it: “I'm an observer in these matters, not a participant.”

Route one: revealing the ground

The strongest controlled evidence comes from psilocybin. In a double-blind trial of 95 adults with alcohol use disorder, psilocybin plus psychotherapy reduced the percentage of heavy-drinking days to 9.7%, against 23.6% with an active placebo (Bogenschutz and colleagues, 2022)24. In a pilot trial for smoking, 40.5% of participants given psilocybin were continuously abstinent at six months, against 10% given a nicotine patch (Johnson and colleagues). An older meta-analysis of six LSD trials from the 1960s found a consistent benefit for alcohol misuse, though it faded by twelve months (Krebs & Johansen, 2012)26.

The leading account of how psychedelics might do this is Carhart-Harris and Friston's "REBUS" model (2019)27: psychedelics relax the confidence the brain places in its deepest expectations, letting bottom-up signals revise them. In the terms of this series, they loosen a fixed configuration. Work in mice adds a second mechanism. Nardou and colleagues (2023)28 found that several psychedelics, along with ketamine and MDMA, reopen a critical period for learning from social reward, for days to weeks depending on the drug.

Read through McLuhan, a psychedelic experience may work as a chemical anti-environment. For a few hours the ground of narcocrasis becomes perceptible as a state rather than as the world, and the plasticity that follows leaves a window in which it can be re-tempered. This reading is this paper's own synthesis; no prior scholarship maps McLuhan's anti-environment onto psychedelic therapy.

Ibogaine, the drug most associated with interrupting opioid addiction, belongs here too, with a serious warning. The evidence for it is observational: small follow-ups in New Zealand and Mexico report reduced withdrawal and use after a single treatment (Noller and colleagues, 2018)29. Its risks are documented. A review of 19 deaths associated with ibogaine found heart failure or cardiac arrest prominent, often in people with existing heart disease (Alper and colleagues, 2012)30. A 2024 study in veterans gave ibogaine with magnesium to reduce cardiac risk, under medical monitoring, and reported large improvements in function after traumatic brain injury (Cherian and colleagues, Nature Medicine), but it had no control group and did not study addiction.

Two cautions apply to this whole route. These are early results; few large trials exist. And participants in psychedelic and ketamine trials can almost always tell whether they received the active drug, which inflates estimates of effect.

Route two: turning the gain down

The second route acts on one dimension of the configuration, reward gain, without revealing anything. Naltrexone, an opioid blocker, is the established example. The newest is the GLP-1 class of drugs developed for diabetes and weight loss. In a small trial of 48 adults with alcohol use disorder, low-dose semaglutide reduced alcohol consumed in a lab session, drinks per drinking day and craving, though not the number of days people drank (Hendershot and colleagues, 2025)32. An earlier trial of exenatide found no overall effect on heavy drinking, but did find reduced reward-circuit response to alcohol cues, and benefit in people with obesity (Klausen and colleagues, 2022)33.

Ketamine sits between the routes. In a trial of 96 people with alcohol use disorder, ketamine increased the percentage of abstinent days over six months (Grabski and colleagues, 2022)34, and it too reopens plasticity in animal work.

Two strategies, two meanings of recovery

The contrast matters more than any single result. Gain reduction treats narcocrasis by adjusting one setting while the ground stays invisible. It is real help, and for many people it may be enough. The anti-environment route treats it by making the ground briefly visible, which opens the possibility that the person, not only the pharmacology, changes the configuration. Neither is the whole of recovery. The next section argues that what makes either one last lies outside the drug.

10Anacrasis: recovery as re-mixing

We call recovery anacrasis, from ana- (again, back) and krasis. The word turns out to exist in ancient Greek, with a meaning nobody planned for this paper: in Plutarch, anakrasis means mixing with others, social intercourse. The coincidence is useful, because the evidence suggests that re-tempering the configuration and re-mixing with other people are closely bound.

The ground recovers slowly

Narcocrasis outlasts the drug, which is the persistence dimension in its plainest form. Brain imaging of five people recovering from methamphetamine use found dopamine transporter levels rose substantially between the first six months and twelve to seventeen months of abstinence (Volkow and colleagues, 2001)35. But recovery was partial and uneven. Some motor and memory deficits did not recover alongside the transporters, and later work found other deficits persisting. The ground can be re-tempered, but slowly, partially, and system by system. Gu's model of craving (2018)15 suggests one reason: expectations that have become highly precise yield to new evidence only gradually.

What re-tempers it

Three kinds of intervention act on the dimensions narcocrasis fixes.

The body. Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) trains attention to bodily sensation and to natural rewards. In a trial of 250 adults with chronic pain and opioid misuse, 45.0% receiving MORE were no longer misusing opioids at nine months, against 24.4% receiving supportive group therapy (Garland and colleagues, 2022)36. A secondary analysis found MORE normalized blunted responses to natural rewards (Garland and colleagues, 2025). Mindful Awareness in Body-oriented Therapy (MABT), which trains interoceptive awareness directly, improved substance use outcomes at six and twelve months in women in treatment (Price and colleagues, 2019)37. Both work on the inside channel that section 6 found fixed. Most of these trials come from the developers' own groups.

Others. Venniro's rats chose social contact over heroin, and the choice reduced later craving (section 8). Nardou's psychedelics reopened specifically the window for learning from social reward (section 9). Across very different evidence, the same thing recurs: what re-tempers the configuration is not only the absence of the drug but the presence of other people. Anacrasis in Plutarch's sense.

A window. If psychedelics, ketamine or MDMA open a period of heightened plasticity, what fills it matters. A reopened window spent in isolation and the old environment may close on the old configuration. One spent among others, attending to the body and to ordinary rewards, may close on a new one. This paper offers that as a reading of the evidence, not a finding.

Recovery as a changed relation

If addiction is a medium, recovery is not only subtraction. Removing the drug removes the content. Re-tempering the medium means changing the relation between body, setting and others that the drug had been holding in place. That is why recovery so often involves new people, new routines and new places, and why it takes the time it does.

11The boundary: media and behavioural addictions

A McLuhan-based theory of addiction invites an obvious extension: if drugs are media, are media drugs? The series this paper belongs to is about digital media, so the question matters. The honest answer is that the extension holds only partly.

Gambling disorder is recognised as an addiction in the DSM-5, and gaming disorder in the World Health Organization's ICD-11. "Social media addiction" has no diagnostic status, and some researchers warn against labelling everyday behaviour as pathology on the strength of surface symptoms (Kardefelt-Winther and colleagues, 2017)39.

The best causal evidence on digital media comes from economics. Allcott, Gentzkow and Song (2022)38 ran a randomised experiment with nearly 2,000 US adults. Temporary incentives to cut use had lasting effects, which suggests habit formation, and self-imposed limits reduced use, which suggests self-control problems. Their model attributes 31% of social media use to self-control problems.

That is real evidence of something addiction-like. But it is evidence of habit and self-control failure, not of an anti-reward state. No robust human evidence yet shows hyperkatifeia-like withdrawal states from social media or gaming. Popular claims about phones delivering "dopamine hits" go well beyond the data.

So narcocrasis, as defined here, applies to dependence-type addiction by mechanism and to behavioural addictions only by analogy. That boundary is informative rather than disappointing. It suggests digital media can capture attention and habit without necessarily shifting the hedonic set point, and that the McLuhan question for screens may be less about narcosis than about the sense-ratio changes treated elsewhere in this series.

12Objections and replies

"This is a metaphor." The McLuhan side is interpretive; the mechanism is not. Every dimension of narcocrasis maps onto measures already in use: reward thresholds, dopamine imaging, interoceptive precision parameters, hyperkatifeia scales. The paper's claim is that McLuhan's structure and the allostatic model describe the same thing, because they come from the same physiology.

"This is just the allostatic model in new words." The allostatic model describes the state. Narcocrasis adds a claim about perception: that the state becomes invisible to the person living inside it, which is why relief is credited to the drug rather than to the repair of a baseline the drug itself shifted. It also joins two bodies of research usually studied separately, allostasis and interoceptive precision, into one configuration, and it places addiction in the same frame as the media effects treated elsewhere in this series. That perceptual claim is what the term adds.

"The set-point evidence is mostly from rats." Conceded. Human data are consistent but indirect, and medicines aimed at the stress systems have largely failed in trials. The human claim here is consistency, not demonstration.

"McLuhan's science was loose, and Jonas was a vanity-press author." Conceded, and used. McLuhan was right about structure and careless about sources. The paper's contribution is to give that structure a sound lineage, through Selye, Sterling and Eyer, McEwen and Koob.

"In McLuhan, the content of a medium is another medium, not a drug." That is consistent with the argument. The drug is itself a medium, a pharmakon, and its content is the person's own restored baseline (section 5).

"Craving persists after withdrawal ends, so the ground cannot be the driver." Partly answered by persistence: the configuration outlasts withdrawal, and conditioned and incubated craving extend it. But cue-driven relapse without negative affect is the hardest case for this paper, and incentive sensitization may explain it better (section 8).

"Interoceptive deficits appear in many conditions, not just addiction." That suits a theory of configuration. Configuration is a general property; addiction is one way it becomes fixed.

"Behavioural addictions undercut the thesis." The thesis is stated for dependence-type addiction. Digital media show habit and self-control effects without demonstrated anti-reward states, and that boundary is part of the argument (section 11).

"Psychedelic results are inflated by unblinding." Conceded. Participants usually know what they received, so effect sizes are likely optimistic. The anti-environment reading does not depend on the size of any one effect, but the clinical claims should be held lightly until larger, better-blinded trials report.

"Ibogaine is dangerous." It is. Its cardiac risks are documented and have caused deaths. Nothing in this paper is a recommendation to use any drug. Ibogaine is discussed because it is part of the scientific picture. Where it is studied responsibly, it is given only with medical screening and cardiac monitoring; much use happens in unregulated settings without either.

13Conclusion

McLuhan told the story of Narcissus to make a point about media: we are numbed by our own extensions, and the numbness is what keeps us from seeing them. He drew that idea from the stress physiology of his day. Fifty years later, the same physiology produced the allostatic model of addiction, which describes a brain that adapts to a drug by shifting its own baseline and then defends the shifted state as normal.

Put together, the two give a precise account of what is hidden in dependence. It is not the drug, which is the brightest thing in the world. It is the ground the drug has moved: a narcocrasis of gain, bodily feeling and persistence that the person lives inside without perceiving. The drug is the content of that medium, and its relief is credited to the content rather than to the temporary repair of the ground.

McLuhan's tetrad asks four questions of any medium. Asked of narcocrasis:

The routes back follow from the structure. One turns the gain down. The other makes the ground briefly visible, an anti-environment in McLuhan's sense, so that it can be re-tempered. What makes either last is anacrasis: re-tempering that happens, as the Greek word says, in mixing again with others.

Several questions remain open. Does the person in dependence perceive the anti-reward ground at all, or only recognise it afterwards? Is withdrawal the moment ground briefly becomes figure? Do different drugs leave different narcocratic signatures? And what does a reopened window need to close on a new configuration rather than the old one? These are questions about media as much as about medicine, which is the point McLuhan was making all along.

References

1. 1McLuhan (1964), Understanding Media, ch. 4 "The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis," pp. 41–47 (McGraw-Hill)
2. 2Jonas (1962), Irritation and Counterirritation, Vantage Press
3. 3Cavell (2002), McLuhan in Space, University of Toronto Press
4. 4Selye (1956), The Stress of Life
5. 5Sterling & Eyer (1988), allostasis; Sterling (2012), Physiology & Behavior 106: 5–15
6. 6Koob & Le Moal (2001), Neuropsychopharmacology 24: 97–129
7. 7Solomon & Corbit (1974), Psychological Review 81: 119–145
8. 8Koob & Volkow (2016), Lancet Psychiatry 3: 760–773
9. 9Koob (2020), Biological Psychiatry 87: 44–53; Koob (2021), Pharmacological Reviews 73(1): 163–201
10. 10Ahmed, Kenny, Koob & Markou (2002), Nature Neuroscience 5: 625–626
11. 11Lee et al. (2009), Journal of Neuroscience 29(47): 14734
12. 12Naqvi et al. (2007), Science 315: 531–534
13. 13Abdolahi et al. (2015), Addiction; Addictive Behaviors 51: 24
14. 14Smith et al. (2020), PLoS Computational Biology 16(12): e1008484; Smith et al. (2021), Scientific Reports 11: 2108
15. 15Gu & Filbey (2017), JAMA Psychiatry 74(4): 419–420; Gu (2018), Neuropsychopharmacology
16. 16Robinson & Berridge (1993), Brain Research Reviews 18: 247–291
17. 17Hogarth (2020), Neuropsychopharmacology 45: 720–735
18. 18Miller, Kiverstein & Rietveld (2020), Brain and Cognition 138: 105495
19. 19Venniro et al. (2018), Nature Neuroscience 21: 1520–1529
20. 20Heilig et al. (2021), Neuropsychopharmacology 46: 1715–1723
21. 21McLuhan (1967), "The Invisible Environment," Perspecta 11
22. 22McLuhan (1968), War and Peace in the Global Village (fish and water)
23. 23McLuhan (1969), Playboy interview
24. 24Bogenschutz et al. (2022), JAMA Psychiatry 79(10): 953–962
25. 25Johnson et al., psilocybin for smoking cessation (pilot and comparative trial)
26. 26Krebs & Johansen (2012), Journal of Psychopharmacology 26(7): 994–1002
27. 27Carhart-Harris & Friston (2019), Pharmacological Reviews 71(3): 316–344
28. 28Nardou et al. (2023), Nature 618: 790–798
29. 29Noller, Frampton & Yazar-Klosinski (2018), Am J Drug and Alcohol Abuse 44(1): 37–46
30. 30Alper, Stajić & Gill (2012), Journal of Forensic Sciences 57(2): 398–412
31. 31Cherian et al. (2024), Nature Medicine 30: 373–381
32. 32Hendershot et al. (2025), JAMA Psychiatry 82(4): 395–405
33. 33Klausen et al. (2022), JCI Insight 7(19): e159863
34. 34Grabski et al. (2022), American Journal of Psychiatry 179(2): 152–162
35. 35Volkow et al. (2001), Journal of Neuroscience 21(23): 9414–9418
36. 36Garland et al. (2022), JAMA Internal Medicine 182(4): 407–417; Garland et al. (2025), JAMA Psychiatry 82(7): 654–662
37. 37Price, Thompson, Crowell & Pike (2019), Drug and Alcohol Dependence 198: 140–149
38. 38Allcott, Gentzkow & Song (2022), American Economic Review 112(7): 2424–2463
39. 39Kardefelt-Winther et al. (2017), Addiction 112: 1709–1715
40. 40Heyman (2013), "Addiction and choice: theory and new data," Frontiers in Psychiatry 4: 31