Terence McKenna

[jay6785]

I think you are mistaking my point, I have nothing agaisnt Terrance McKenna and do agree with some of the stuff he preaches.

But I am not the scientific community, or the FDA or anyone who will ultimitley decide whether psy drugs have a place in our society now or in the future. I am someone who ingests these drugs and understand the experiences. I therefore understand alot of what McKenna has to say.

Unfortunetly we live in a scientific world, so therefore it doesn't matter how spiritual we all are, infact modern society thinks any spirituality that is not mainstream i.e christianity, islam, judism is essentially a form of madness, even if it makes far more sense than the bible (which contains a whole lot of crazy shit I reckon)

I do believe a scientist could come and make psy science/recreational use an acceptable thing. That scientist is not Terrance McKenna, therefore he should not have claimed to be a scientist in any sense (not that he is the way he jumps around on theories as if it is definite proof)

His growing mushroom ideas were great however lets not pretend that someone else wouldn't have figured that out pretty quickly, I mean it is essentially the same as growing edible mushrooms.

Edited June 29, 2010 by jay6785

[holymountain]

His growing mushroom ideas were great however lets not pretend that someone else wouldn't have figured that out pretty quickly, I mean it is essentially the same as growing edible mushrooms.

thats like saying 'hendrix is great but someone else would have written 'purple haze' if he hadn't. it's essentially just three chords'

hendrix was the man for the job and so was Mckenna. he mightn't have been the man to ensure psychedelics find their place in society but he was definitely the man for getting the info out there and introducing a lot of concepts and theories....and even if he was totally wrong at least he got people interested and talking and debating. in the 80s he made psychedelics an issue again instead of just some 60's throwback and like hendrix he was the right dude at the right time with the right message to usher in the rave scene and cyber culture etc.

Edited June 29, 2010 by holymountain

[jay6785]

thats like saying 'hendrix is great but someone else would have written 'purple haze' if he hadn't. it's essentially just three chords'

hendrix was the man for the job and so was Mckenna. he mightn't have been the man to ensure psychedelics find their place in society but he was definitely the man for getting the info out there and introducing a lot of concepts and theories....and even if he was totally wrong at least he got people interested and talking and debating. in the 80s he made psychedelics an issue again instead of just some 60's throwback and like hendrix he was the right dude at the right time with the right message to usher in the rave scene and cyber culture etc.

 

A piece of art (whether it is music, paintings, sculpture etc.) is far different to a pratical means to an end (growing fungus, how to repair bike tyres, building a bird cage). Art has many variables, from when it is created, who it is created by and to who is the audience. Growing mushrooms would always be achieved, and basically would always be the same.

I do not think there is any comparison.

I also do not think that Terrance McKenna made psychedelics an issue again, I think pyschedelics were becoming an issue and needed a figurehead, culture grabbed onto anyone they could, even if he wasn't the right person. Terrance simply went along for the ride.

That is personal opinion though, kind of a what came first the chicken or the egg.

[PD.]

don't blame mckenna for other people's inability to think for themselves.

touche.

Unfortunetly we live in a scientific world, so therefore it doesn't matter how spiritual we all are, infact modern society thinks any spirituality that is not mainstream i.e christianity, islam, judism is essentially a form of madness, even if it makes far more sense than the bible (which contains a whole lot of crazy shit I reckon)

 

Why doesnt it matter how spiritual we all are??? Pretty broad statement man, considering modern society is made up of so many different ppl and beliefs, are we talkin australian society or "western" society as a whole???

Personally i never really paid any attention to anything Mckenna, never read his books or listened to his talks, what i have seen bores the shit out of me honestly, i have a tiny attention span though and id rather see the things for myself. LOL, i never realised he was a scientist, i though he was just a dude that talked lots and trippers liked to listen to.

What is it you guys debating again???????

kind of a what came first the chicken or the egg

It was the chicken.

[mutant]

PD>>>

What is it you guys debating again???????

about McKenna burrying the cause he supposedly worked for and probably taking some psychonauts brains along with him

exactly like Leary/Lilly did.

but on the other hand

those that would go for the "eat lots of the motherfuckers, lots of times, let's see what's the most grams I can ingest without getting crazy", that kind of stuff, I suppose those people must have a guru, a frontman, a representative.

So McKenna was bad for psychs reputation, but he might make trippers of the world feel happier with themselves, and this might be both good and bad

I liked the hairy ass joke though

telepath>>

The great thinkers and experiences that I value appreciate the 'hard' material sciences but understand that there are sciences beyond the material

I agree 100%

So when I talk to science dogmatics , I am taking a go at their own belief, scientific proof and all that shit, while when I'm talking to a psychedelic believer I talk reason.

Does this make sense?

[holymountain]

Growing mushrooms would always be achieved, and basically would always be the same.

But the point is that Mckenna started it. If you don't dig the Hendrix comparison then lets say it's like taking away Edison's creation of the lightbulb and saying 'someone was always going to do it and it would have been the same'.

So when I talk to science dogmatics , I am taking a go at their own belief, scientific proof and all that shit, while when I'm talking to a psychedelic believer I talk reason.

Does this make sense?

so where does this place you then?

those that would go for the "eat lots of the motherfuckers, lots of times, let's see what's the most grams I can ingest without getting crazy", that kind of stuff, I suppose those people must have a guru, a frontman, a representative.

i seriously, seriously doubt that is the attitude of anyone who admires Mckenna. Infact I doubt it's the attitude of anyone who eats mushrooms (at least if that is their attitude the first time it certainly wouldn't be the second time they ate them). love how you put motherfuckers in there as well you really nailed the lingo.

It was the chicken.

i thought so.

Edited June 30, 2010 by holymountain

[hutch]

it was egg...with out the shell....

[jay6785]

But the point is that Mckenna started it. If you don't dig the Hendrix comparison then lets say it's like taking away Edison's creation of the lightbulb and saying 'someone was always going to do it and it would have been the same'.

 

Yes someone would have created the lightbulb, if not Edison. Also growing mushrooms is not really comparable to the invention of a brand new item.

Edison came up with a lightbulb literally in the dark about if it was even possible.

Growing mushrooms is a bit different...I mean it is just bacteria, you can potentially just chuck mushrooms in wood and it will grow so long as certain known conditions were met and those conditions were known, as was the problem. McKenna filled in the gaps of knowledge, he did not invent.

Comparing the invention of the lightbulb to some guy who figured out how to grow mushrooms in a small tank is crazy I think. But this is just my view, I respect yours as well.

I reckon with LSD made illegal, that was what sparked a desire for an alternative easy do it yourself method to get a compound that could induce an altered state, rather than McKenna striding in and saving everyone. I am sure some random science geek would have figured it out sooner or later.

Edited June 30, 2010 by jay6785

[jay6785]

Why doesnt it matter how spiritual we all are??? Pretty broad statement man, considering modern society is made up of so many different ppl and beliefs, are we talkin australian society or "western" society as a whole???

 

I kind of meant western society as a whole,

Try an experiment. Walk down to your local street or go to the pub. Ask the people in thier about thier views on a certain alternative religeon (i.e paganism). I reckon most people will tell you that pagans worship the devil, kill babies and eat people.

Buddhism is starting to become more accepted, mainly due to its 'cool' status.

Then again I live in a pretty bogan suburb so my view may be incorrect, especially if you live in some trendy new age suburb.

[ThunderIdeal]

Growing mushrooms is a bit different...I mean it is just bacteria

 

this discussion is becoming stupid isn't it?

i'm just tempted to have a swipe at mutant, nothing unusual there.

say what you will, i'm glad mckenna lived. maybe we'd be better off if he hadn't, who knows. i think he had some interesting thoughts, i disagree with lots of them but i come from a different time.

[cyberPagan]

yeah,

don't forget he ran off from his wife with an 18yr old blonde at post-retirement age.

not long after he died of brain cancer....

absolutely great to see some skepticism,

I hate it when people leader-worship, especially politicians and musicians

*vomit*

he was smart,

but some people need a leader,

but most leaders these days tend to be assholes.

and fame is overrated ;)

[mutant]

Holymountain

So when I talk to science dogmatics , I am taking a go at their own belief, scientific proof and all that shit, while when I'm talking to a psychedelic believer I talk reason.

Does this make sense?

 

so where does this place you then?

that has been one of the problems of my philosophical opponents, when things get personal. Many try, but noone can class a prototype.

I am somewhere in between mate. Most things come in many flavours, not just two, black and white. I use reason, instinct, critical thought, personal experience and experience of others, emotions, even intuition and then some.

One of my best definitions for intelligence, apart from being able to learn fast & easy from new data, is also being able to learn from other people's data

i seriously, seriously doubt that is the attitude of anyone who admires Mckenna. Infact I doubt it's the attitude of anyone who eats mushrooms (at least if that is their attitude the first time it certainly wouldn't be the second time they ate them). love how you put motherfuckers in there as well you really nailed the lingo.

that was an exaggeration. not sure what nail the lingo means, maybe something like 'I killed the phrase" ? Anyways what I described is one extreme.

ThunderIdeal

this discussion is becoming stupid isn't it?

no it's not

it's a funny note that threads seem to become stupid/pointless for believers exactly the same time their arguements are being leveled by healthy scepticism

say what you will, i'm glad mckenna lived. maybe we'd be better off if he hadn't, who knows. i think he had some interesting thoughts, i disagree with lots of them but i come from a different time.

I am glad he lived too! He definately has more than some interesting thoughts, I agree with lots of them.

Edited July 1, 2010 by mutant

[rahli]

I've only read a little of Terrance's works online so can't really contribute much to the discussion.

To be honest the most I've read on him was just a couple of days ago in this critical essay.

Terence on DMT: An Entheological Analysis of McKenna’s Experiences in the Tryptamine Mirror of the Self

Seems to be causing quite a stir among the McKenna fans out there.

[-YT-]

i tend to agree with thunder

I have read most of his stuff and listened to most talks not because of some stauch devotion to said ontology but rather i find varying perspectives interesting also the history of the scene as it were largely invovles such characters. favourite writings of his would be the hash fueled wanderings trying to avoid straight edge peeps

An interesting point is that TK was connected to the old school heads like watts, ginsberg etc but also came after them. when was it around the 80's? when he was becoming noticable, seems to have filled the psychadelic void in a way leary was still around but largely in decline and on about the techonolgy revolution which in the late 80's early 90's was just coming about. tech boom/communication plus relative obscurity of d mt back than made it an exciting and little known topic.

Yes him and Dennis did do a lot for psilocybe cultivation, it had been played around with earlier but not simplified and extrapolated to the degree that allowed anyone to have a go with a relatively easy and cheap setup. one could argue they were pioneers.. or rather the french who first collected and grew Agaricus either way it has lead to the innovations we see today and are always ongoing.

and yes everyone is fallible

[t st tantra]

i enjoy most of his stuff but he was a triptamine chauvinist and infected many with HIS vision .and maybe this was a good thing then but we have grown to a wider view?

t s t .

[mutant]

excellent posts.

this wider view, IMO, largely has to do with that 'various perspectives' YT points out.

Only McKenna seems to be possessed , from a point an on, from his own persective and vision...

[ThunderIdeal]

I've only read a little of Terrance's works online so can't really contribute much to the discussion.

To be honest the most I've read on him was just a couple of days ago in this critical essay.

Terence on DMT: An Entheological Analysis of McKenna’s Experiences in the Tryptamine Mirror of the Self

Seems to be causing quite a stir among the McKenna fans out there.

 

i'm glad i got around to reading this. it's a bit off putting, the way this guy tears mckenna down as though he expected us to hang off his every word. i don't think mckenna expected us to think of him as our guru, particularly not years afterwards. maybe this is a good read for anybody who DOES think mckenna is the be-all and end-all??

anyway, ignoring for a moment what i perceive to be a high-and-mighty attitude, there really is some interesting stuff here, eg:

Did Terence ever ponder how this might be a reflection of himself? Does he not realize that he, himself, is making exotic "objects" out of language by putting thoughts into the minds of others of machine elves and self-dribbling basketballs and reality made out of language? Isn't this a perfect metaphor for exactly what Terence is himself doing?

[Seldom]

/ actually never mind

Edited April 11, 2012 by bulls on parade

[incognito]

excellent posts.

this wider view, IMO, largely has to do with that 'various perspectives' YT points out.

Only McKenna seems to be possessed , from a point an on, from his own persective and vision...

 

Isn't that what it's all about ? To blend with life and maintain ones own perspective and vision? Above All?

Wouldn't one be better of dead otherwise?

McKenna expressed ideas, and knowledge. People read them, listened and did what they would? So what?

Why someone would get so worked about a critical analysis is beyond me. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, that's agin his ideas and knowledge. Do what you will with them.

Shouldn't he be free to say whatever he felt? I'm sure McKenna wouldn't give two fucksj.

Edited May 21, 2012 by incognito

[∂an]

yeah I've got massive respect for mckenna's anarchistic approach to life, he would chop and change his point of view all the time, challenging himself and others to see issues in society from different perspectives. the word that springs to mind when I think of terence is 'catalyst' - he was/is a catalyst for psychedelic thinking in all facets of life, nothing more than a faucet for the fountain of creativity that pours into all of us from hyperspace...

[goneski]

1) you started behaving rudely and arrogantly to me, trying to discredit me using the cheapest way possible, that I am not experienced enough, as if knowledge or objectivity are analogous to the # of trips and total grams consumed. This happened even more distinctly when I commented on a dark report of yours, noting that maybe, maybe, there was nothing special or symbolic about it, just headfucking. This whole behaviour indicates a religious mind. Religious minds have a hard time being objective , especially towards ideas perceived as hostile to the said religion.

2) I am a rationalist, an atheist, I don't believe in the supernatural. You know of course that believing is required for miracles to occur, no? I am argueing that a non-believer will not experience the same things as believers do. Also for a non-believer such trips might be more difficult. I am also saying that McKennas Fans will have more McKennish visions under the influence. You want evidence? Common sense and basic knowledge of what psychedelics are, again.

3) Psychedelics were called psychotomimics in the old days. It's pretty valid if you ask me. Their effects can indeed very much resemble psychosis. Why should I believe that the phenomena experienced are for real, and not an advanced form of the drug action mimicking psychosis? Intense trips can resemble psychosis, note that psychosis does not only occur in negative mode, f.e. paranoid dellusion, but also in a extremely 'positive' form f.e. 'dellusions of grandeur', 'speaking with god' etc....

*****

*Can the mushrooms be of an alien origin? maybe, but then what about the other related psychedelics? Are they alien too?

*Can the mushrooms carry with them data from their alien past? Maybe - are people seeing and talking to aliens because they really make contact with them [the aliens] or because they already know of this nice idea [McKenna or otherwise], that maybe the mushroom has catalyzed the raise of consciousness in other planets/species before coming here and so the idea plays when under the influence?

*Can the mushrooms be some kind of portal to that alien descent? I doubt that, but I can accept that people experience this, while believeing, and that it can feel like it actually is a portal. But it's not. Not until my own transmitter lets me talk to them.

 

Spot. Fucking. On.

Neuroscience studies on applying electromagnetic stimulation to the temporal lobe are showing this. Religious and spiritual people WITH A PREDISPOSITION (or an existing mindset) towards crazy beliefs

will have crazier experiences than those who are non-religious, skeptical, etc.. Same goes for temporal lobe epilepsy.. Closely related to confirmation bias.

One common theory from Evolutionary Psychology is that spiritual / mystical experiences may be the brain's way of tricking and relaxing the self during death / near death experiences -- a way of fooling the self

into believing immortality. Drugs may just be a way of activating these pathways in the brain.

I think it's preposterous to believe there's some kind of 'reality' behind psychedelic / drug experiences given how little we know about the human brain. This is where the humility of science wins my respect.

EDIT: just realised i was resurrecting this thread. Oh well. Also, this is relevant:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life/

Edited June 26, 2012 by SYNeR

[lafirewalls]

One common theory from Evolutionary Psychology is that spiritual / mystical experiences may be the brain's way of tricking and relaxing the self during death / near death experiences -- a way of fooling the self

into believing immortality. Drugs may just be a way of activating these pathways in the brain.

 

Surely being relaxed and having somekind of spiritual moment in a near death situation would be an evolutionary disadvantage? No matter how divine one's contemplation of the universe can get it won't exactly keep you alive. I'm also curious about where you draw the line between the brain and the self? In the face of overwhelmingly psychedelic moments (like death) I think that it's pretty widely reported that the self can disappear. I suppose that your proposition is that the self distorts this experience into something mystical/spiritual in order to maintain it's composure or sanity post-trauma. While I kinda agree with this, I think that the very fact that the self can take a back seat every now and then is in itself an existential revelation about how humans work. While McKenna did endorse some pretty far out viewpoints he had incredibly benevolent intentions and a wealth of psychedelic experience which didn't necessarily teach him about any fundamental underlying truth to the universe, but rather showed him that the world was shaped by a multiplicity of real and imagined realities and that he could have a causal role in shaping those worlds around him.

[goneski]

Surely being relaxed and having somekind of spiritual moment in a near death situation would be an evolutionary disadvantage? No matter how divine one's contemplation of the universe can get it won't exactly keep you alive. I'm also curious about where you draw the line between the brain and the self? In the face of overwhelmingly psychedelic moments (like death) I think that it's pretty widely reported that the self can disappear. I suppose that your proposition is that the self distorts this experience into something mystical/spiritual in order to maintain it's composure or sanity post-trauma. While I kinda agree with this, I think that the very fact that the self can take a back seat every now and then is in itself an existential revelation about how humans work. While McKenna did endorse some pretty far out viewpoints he had incredibly benevolent intentions and a wealth of psychedelic experience which didn't necessarily teach him about any fundamental underlying truth to the universe, but rather showed him that the world was shaped by a multiplicity of real and imagined realities and that he could have a causal role in shaping those worlds around him.

 

Evolutionary disadvantage? Possibly. I'll try dig up some papers if/when I get the time. Also, humans are full of evolutionary disadvantages -- we're far from optimal.This is one of the biggest traps with speculative evolutionary psychology at times -- the willingness to presuppose an evolutionary advantage in everything and then derive explanations from that. Not everything (far from it) confers an evolutionary advantage.

Where do I draw the line between the brain and the self? I take the view that the self is an illusion -- a representationalist / self-representational and functionalist theory of mind.. I'm very fond of Thomas Metzinger's theory of mind / consciousness / self, based on the findings of neuroscience. I don't really believe in dualism at all..

http://www.artbrain.org/the-sense-of-agency-and-the-illusion-of-the-self/

http://www.edge.org/discourse/self.html#metzinger

http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

Or better yet, read his books.

[folias]

How many of you have actually listened to Terrence McKenna's talks? (which are readily available to download on the internet) It doesn't sound like many of you have....

All his books, his well known theories, are completely crap compared to his talks.

Someone needs to collate his talks into a compendium of his thinking and ideas. That book would make all previous human philosophy look like the big steaming pile almost all of it is!

Terrence McKenna detractors are mostly fools, idiots or both! The kind of people who, in previous lives, though the world was flat!

http://www.conone.org/selfgods.html

[goneski]

That book would make all previous human philosophy look like the big steaming pile almost all of it is!

 

ORLY? That's a big big claim if you've actually studied philosophy.

I've listened to a couple of McKenna's talks (from deoxy.org and other places) and really, there wasn't anything noteworthy that a lot of philosophers

haven't already expounded upon over the last few centuries in much greater depth and detail.

Edited July 4, 2012 by SYNeR