Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Well, while you guys may have listened to tidbits here and there or read excerpts from his books, I, on the other hand, have read all his books, I've listened to just about every recording out there on the net of Terence McKenna, if not all of them...

I actually don't hold him to any high-esteem. He's really good to listen to brush up on your vocabulary. The guy is like a human dictionary. I challenge you to listen to one of his talks in its entirety. You'll find yourself rushing to the dictionary with every other word in his sentences. I'm actually a huge fan of Alan Watts, but judging by this crowd, you guys probably think he was another reincarnation of Chopra. By the way, I've never read anything by Chopra, but I have seen a few clips like the one where he's interviewed by Richard Dawkins. I believe Terence was, at the very least, more rational than that. One thing that Terence did, and that I believe he's most popular for, is his advocacy for the "heroic dose." I mean, that's how a lot of people end up taking upon this endeavor, because they get the shamanic amount from Terence. That was his greatest legacy. If it turns out that his "Stoned Ape" concept is true, then it'll probably shift to that, but the greatest mark he left was as the advocate for taking psychedelics at dose ranges most people are uncomfortable with.

I don't consider that a noteworthy legacy.

Kafei wrote:

Ironclad wrote:
GENERAL MODNOTE
This thread has been relocated, from Christianity to General Debunking. Enjoy!

Wtf? Why? There's nothing to debunk. Maybe it should've went to the theistic thread of which the phrase "ground of all being" is most used in.

Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Kafei wrote:He's really good to listen to brush up on your vocabulary. The guy is like a human dictionary. I challenge you to listen to one of his talks in its entirety. You'll find yourself rushing to the dictionary with every other word in his sentences.

Maybe I just listened to pieces where he was being less pretentious, but I didn't find that.

And as far as being 'good to listen to' more generally, 'nasal' is rarely a recommendation for a public speaker.

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Well, while you guys may have listened to tidbits here and there or read excerpts from his books, I, on the other hand, have read all his books, I've listened to just about every recording out there on the net of Terence McKenna, if not all of them...

I actually don't hold him to any high-esteem. He's really good to listen to brush up on your vocabulary. The guy is like a human dictionary. I challenge you to listen to one of his talks in its entirety. You'll find yourself rushing to the dictionary with every other word in his sentences. I'm actually a huge fan of Alan Watts, but judging by this crowd, you guys probably think he was another reincarnation of Chopra. By the way, I've never read anything by Chopra, but I have seen a few clips like the one where he's interviewed by Richard Dawkins. I believe Terence was, at the very least, more rational than that. One thing that Terence did, and that I believe he's most popular for, is his advocacy for the "heroic dose." I mean, that's how a lot of people end up taking upon this endeavor, because they get the shamanic amount from Terence. That was his greatest legacy. If it turns out that his "Stoned Ape" concept is true, then it'll probably shift to that, but the greatest mark he left was as the advocate for taking psychedelics at dose ranges most people are uncomfortable with.

I don't consider that a noteworthy legacy.

Maybe you don't, but I think as these things become more and more known about, it will be noteworthy.

Kafei wrote:

Ironclad wrote:
GENERAL MODNOTE
This thread has been relocated, from Christianity to General Debunking. Enjoy!

Wtf? Why? There's nothing to debunk. Maybe it should've went to the theistic thread of which the phrase "ground of all being" is most used in.

Spearthrower wrote:Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory. I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory. It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Well, while you guys may have listened to tidbits here and there or read excerpts from his books, I, on the other hand, have read all his books, I've listened to just about every recording out there on the net of Terence McKenna, if not all of them...

I actually don't hold him to any high-esteem.

Then why have you been talking him up on the internet for at least 4 years?

He's really good to listen to brush up on your vocabulary. The guy is like a human dictionary. I challenge you to listen to one of his talks in its entirety. You'll find yourself rushing to the dictionary with every other word in his sentences.

I know a lot of words too, some of them really big!

Spearthrower wrote:Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Kafei wrote:

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory.

There are no parallels only a few random superficial coincidences. Ancient "mystics" didn't uncover the universe's mysteries and secrets by sitting around thinking about it or getting high.

Kafei wrote:

I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory. It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Maintain all you want, but you don't having any good reason for believing this to be true. Mystical experience does not equal scientific research. And if M-theory is true and we're living on a D-brane then there will be no glimpses into extra dimensions - ever. No matter how many drugs you do or how long you concentrate or meditate you're not going to go there. Only gravitons as closed strings can go there. Everything and I mean everything else is stuck in and to our observable 3 dimensions.

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:

...That was his greatest legacy. If it turns out that his "Stoned Ape" concept is true, then it'll probably shift to that, but the greatest mark he left was as the advocate for taking psychedelics at dose ranges most people are uncomfortable with.

I don't consider that a noteworthy legacy.

Maybe you don't, but I think as these things become more and more known about, it will be noteworthy.

Which is why the thread's in this forum. Appeals to future knowledge are par for the course here.

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Wtf? Why? There's nothing to debunk. Maybe it should've went to the theistic thread of which the phrase "ground of all being" is most used in.

Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory.

Yes; this is why.

Kafei wrote: I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory.

And you merely confirm the thread's rightful place.

Kafei wrote: It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Or, in fact, didn't arrive at what you think at all. That's the problem with the non-specialist, cherry-picking account of science - and in your case Eastern mysticism too! And it's why you sound like Deepak Chopra!

Oldskeptic wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Kafei wrote:

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory.

There are no parallels only a few random superficial coincidences. Ancient "mystics" didn't uncover the universe's mysteries and secrets by sitting around thinking about it or getting high.

Many theoretical physicists have pointed out these parallels. Michio Kaku has spoken about this, Briane Greene, David Bohm, Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr, etc. They aren't simply superficial coincidences, they're only superficial coincidences to the untrained eye. And one doesn't sit around "think" or "get high," but quite the opposite. It is within quieting the mind that this insight is manifested. It's not a "high," either, but an elevation or expansion of consciousness. These things were called "consciousness expanding drugs" back in the '60s and '70s which is a good ol' phenomenological name for 'em.

Kafei wrote:

I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory. It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Maintain all you want, but you don't having any good reason for believing this to be true. Mystical experience does not equal scientific research. And if M-theory is true and we're living on a D-brane then there will be no glimpses into extra dimensions - ever. No matter how many drugs you do or how long you concentrate or meditate you're not going to go there. Only gravitons as closed strings can go there. Everything and I mean everything else is stuck in and to our observable 3 dimensions.[/quote]

I disagree. I believe it's all interconnected. The third dimension implies all the others.

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:

...That was his greatest legacy. If it turns out that his "Stoned Ape" concept is true, then it'll probably shift to that, but the greatest mark he left was as the advocate for taking psychedelics at dose ranges most people are uncomfortable with.

I don't consider that a noteworthy legacy.

Maybe you don't, but I think as these things become more and more known about, it will be noteworthy.

Which is why the thread's in this forum. Appeals to future knowledge are par for the course here.

This was an aside, not the reason the thread is here, this is my opinion that was expressed after the thread was moved.

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote:
Wtf? Why? There's nothing to debunk. Maybe it should've went to the theistic thread of which the phrase "ground of all being" is most used in.

Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory.

Yes; this is why.

The parallels are there. Nothing I've said thus far has anything to do with "quantum woo," by the way. Like I said before, I don't deal in quantum woo. I leave that for the quacks, the crackpots, and the delusional.

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote: I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory.

And you merely confirm the thread's rightful place.

But these things are often compared. Perhaps you've never read any material on string theory or M-theory, but this isn't some kind of claim that is open to be debunked. It's merely an acknowledgement of parallels that are there if you're paying any attention.

Spearthrower wrote:

Kafei wrote: It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Or, in fact, didn't arrive at what you think at all. That's the problem with the non-specialist, cherry-picking account of science - and in your case Eastern mysticism too! And it's why you sound like Deepak Chopra!

I don't think this has anything to do with cherry-picking or Chopra's output because this is a direct experience that is available to one and all. The only proof of absolute Truth is not in knowing it, because it cannot be known, but in BEING IT.


******************************************************************


An apperception of the basic meaninglessness of conventional values, in terms of reality, lifts man out of the apparent strife and conflict of life.

He now sees life as a game in which he must participate according to the rules but which he need not take at all seriously.

"Scientists are stumped at 'why'... one of these days one of them will have this flash and realize all is consciousness… the flash will happen when the mind is exhausted." - Ramesh Balsekar

Another fine post establishing this thread's rightful place.

Sadly, I've no time to respond to the latest crap on the table of rational discourse.

Spearthrower wrote:Another fine post establishing this thread's rightful place.

Sadly, I've no time to respond to the latest crap on the table of rational discourse.

But there's nothing to debunk. What is there to debunk? I mean, it's not like I'm pointing out these parallels. I've only take my understanding from what I've studied about M-theory and mysticism, and reading into how theoretical physicists have recognized these parallels. So, what is there exactly to debunk?

Kafei wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Another fine post establishing this thread's rightful place.

Sadly, I've no time to respond to the latest crap on the table of rational discourse.

But there's nothing to debunk. What is there to debunk? I mean, it's not like I'm pointing out these parallels. I've only take my understanding from what I've studied about M-theory and mysticism, and reading into how theoretical physicists have recognized these parallels. So, what is there exactly to debunk?

Well, the stupid claim that physicists agree with you, for one. That's already been done, but of course, as it the wont of a propagandizer for woo - you ignored it and continued on repeating it.



They wibble and they wobble but they won't fall down.

Kafei wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

Kafei wrote:

Well, I was only pointing out the parallels between mysticism and M-theory.

There are no parallels only a few random superficial coincidences. Ancient "mystics" didn't uncover the universe's mysteries and secrets by sitting around thinking about it or getting high.

Many theoretical physicists have pointed out these parallels.

Your looking for authority where it doesn't exist.

Michio Kaku has spoken about this,...

Here's what I found of Kaku talking about mystics and extra dimensions: ""Higher-dimensional space became the last refuge for mystics, cranks, and charlatans."

Not quite the endorsement you were looking for, is it?

...Briane Greene,

I can find plenty of places where Greene's explanations are promoted as parallels with with mystics, but nowhere where he does it himself.

...David Bohm, Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr,

All of whom died before Witten proposed M-theory.

They aren't simply superficial coincidences, they're only superficial coincidences to the untrained eye. And one doesn't sit around "think" or "get high," but quite the opposite. It is within quieting the mind that this insight is manifested.

A mind producing hallucinations, drug induced or not, is anything but quiet.

It's not a "high," either, but an elevation or expansion of consciousness.

It is stoned, high, fucked up, frying, tweaked...

These things were called "consciousness expanding drugs" back in the '60s and '70s which is a good ol' phenomenological name for 'em.

It's what some people called them, doesn't make it so.

Kafei wrote:

I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory. It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Maintain all you want, but you don't having any good reason for believing this to be true. Mystical experience does not equal scientific research. And if M-theory is true and we're living on a D-brane then there will be no glimpses into extra dimensions - ever. No matter how many drugs you do or how long you concentrate or meditate you're not going to go there. Only gravitons as closed strings can go there. Everything and I mean everything else is stuck in and to our observable 3 dimensions.

Kafei wrote:
I disagree. I believe it's all interconnected. The third dimension implies all the others.

Tell me which of the three observable spacial dimensions is the third? And even if there was a third dimension and it implies others this does not even come close to implying that there is any way to experience them.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Firstly, it's got bugger all to do with Christianity - the forum it was in. Secondly, it's full of unsubstantiated claims layered one on top of the next, cemented by supposition, and interspersed with quantum woo. It's no different than the vast majority of topics you'll find in this subforum - and each proponent thinks they've alighted on some wondrous state or concept which they present in the same manner as you've presented yours here.

The only problem is that it still includes the original topic, which was quickly side-tracked by... well, you... here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2097184

There are no parallels only a few random superficial coincidences. Ancient "mystics" didn't uncover the universe's mysteries and secrets by sitting around thinking about it or getting high.

Many theoretical physicists have pointed out these parallels.

Your looking for authority where it doesn't exist.

I didn't go out "looking for authority." I wasn't seeking that at all. This is simply what I've read by the authorities on these topics.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Michio Kaku has spoken about this,...

Here's what I found of Kaku talking about mystics and extra dimensions: ""Higher-dimensional space became the last refuge for mystics, cranks, and charlatans."

Not quite the endorsement you were looking for, is it?

You've got an incomplete quote. Again, I wasn't looking for "endorsements." If you had searched a little better, you'd find that this isn't me simply searching for authority or twisting a theoretical physicist's words around for personal gain. I have no personal gain. I'm only relaying what I've read the authorities speak about on these topics. I've no position on any of this, if anything I'm ultimately agnostic as what is the true nature of the mind. You see, if you had found the complete quote, you'd see that Kaku was saying at a time "higher dimensions" were exclusively the domain of mystics, sci-fi writers, etc. Now, serious theoretical physicists not only believe that higher dimensions exist, but they may explain some of the deepest secrets of the universe. [ Full Article]

Oldskeptic wrote:

...David Bohm, Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr,

All of whom died before Witten proposed M-theory.

In an interview with Fritjof Capra, Heisenberg spoke about these parallels between quantum mechanics and eastern mysticism. Likewise, Bohm and Bohr were also fascinated with eastern philosophy. Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti have had many interesting dialogues which can be found on YouTube on all these topics.

Oldskeptic wrote:

They aren't simply superficial coincidences, they're only superficial coincidences to the untrained eye. And one doesn't sit around "think" or "get high," but quite the opposite. It is within quieting the mind that this insight is manifested.

A mind producing hallucinations, drug induced or not, is anything but quiet.

It's not a "high," either, but an elevation or expansion of consciousness.

Well, this is the speculatory hypothesis in Dr. Rick Stassman's book, that if one can manage to quiet the mind, then they'd induce endogenous N,N-DMT naturally and have this experience occur. After all, this is what happens when you fall asleep, only then does subconscious thought take over, and this is cause for the dream. If you watch an experienced monk give a demonstration of samadhi, they will instantly undergo REM. When smokes DMT, they instantly undergo REM. I don't think these are merely coincidences.

Oldskeptic wrote:

These things were called "consciousness expanding drugs" back in the '60s and '70s which is a good ol' phenomenological name for 'em.

It's what some people called them, doesn't make it so.

Well, only to the skeptic who's never drank ayahuasca or who's never taken a "heroic dose" of psilocybin, but these things will flood the mind with information. That is guaranteed if you take the "heroic dose."

Oldskeptic wrote:

Kafei wrote:

I still maintain that the "Ground of All Being" is a reference to the absolute which can be paralleled to 11-dimensional hyperspace in M-theory. It is as though the mystic and the physicist have came to the same conclusion, only the physicist arrived at it intellectually by mathematical hypothesis and the mystic arrived at it intuitively through a phenomenon in consciousness.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Maintain all you want, but you don't having any good reason for believing this to be true. Mystical experience does not equal scientific research. And if M-theory is true and we're living on a D-brane then there will be no glimpses into extra dimensions - ever. No matter how many drugs you do or how long you concentrate or meditate you're not going to go there. Only gravitons as closed strings can go there. Everything and I mean everything else is stuck in and to our observable 3 dimensions.

Kafei wrote:
I disagree. I believe it's all interconnected. The third dimension implies all the others.

Tell me which of the three observable spacial dimensions is the third? And even if there was a third dimension and it implies others this does not even come close to implying that there is any way to experience them.

Well, we don't know that, because these drugs haven't been properly studied. We still lack the technological sophistication to prove M-theory. Until we have an unfettered investigation of these compounds and their relationship to consciousness, these questions will remain unanswered.

Well, only to the skeptic who's never drank ayahuasca or who's never taken a "heroic dose" of psilocybin, but these things will flood the mind with information. That is guaranteed if you take the "heroic dose."

Says the guy who's never taken ayahuasca, and who we have only personal testimony as evidence for ever having taken a "juvenile dose" of psilocybin.

And of course, we have the 'guarantee' that magic will happen, but if you have taken both and didn't see the magic, it's because you weren't praying hard enough didn't take enough!

Spearthrower wrote:

Well, only to the skeptic who's never drank ayahuasca or who's never taken a "heroic dose" of psilocybin, but these things will flood the mind with information. That is guaranteed if you take the "heroic dose."

Says the guy who's never taken ayahuasca, and who we have only personal testimony as evidence for ever having taken a "juvenile dose" of psilocybin.

And of course, we have the 'guarantee' that magic will happen, but if you have taken both and didn't see the magic, it's because you weren't praying hard enough didn't take enough!

I've never taken ayahuasca, sure. Yes, I admit that. I'd like to try it someday, but I have taken a heroic dose of psilocybin. Personal testimony is evidence in this endeavor, especially when you've dozens of volunteers taking the threshold dose and reporting this topos of universality.

And yes, dose is very important, because what you want is a threshold experience. There will be difficult times on a threshold experience, but I believe certain questions will dissolve of their cognitive dissonance, ambiguity, and uncertainty. So, we know that everyone has a unique ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), so the "heroic dose" isn't a fixed dose. It's going to be relative to your unique physiology. So, this isn't a matter of "not praying enough" or "not taking enough." If you hit the marker, then you hit the marker; if you don't, then you don't. So, of course, if you take a subthreshold dose, you didn't taken enough. However, if you hit the threshold, then you've obviously had taken the sufficient amount to produce this experience. I mean, that's not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, it's science, it's pharmacodynamics. There's an entire chapter in Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" on the threshold dose. Maybe I'll post that, too, if it's not abundantly clear by now.

"You must do the experience, otherwise it’s just whistling past the graveyard. And we’re not talking about something like being born again, or meeting the flying saucers, or something like that where good works and prayer are the method. No, If you take a sufficient dose of an active compound it will deliver itself to you on the money. Because There’s nothing worse than a sub-threshold psychedelic experience. Because what it is, is it’s all show and no go, you know. You feel the CNS activation, you feel the keyboards light up, everything comes on, you start down the runaway, you pick-up speed, you pick-up speed, you pick-up speed… And then you come to the end of the runway! And taxi back to the hangar. Well, that was not a flight to Boston, that was just clogging the traffic pattern." -Terence McKenna

There certainly are worse things than sub-threshold psychedelic experiences.

For one, reading evangelistic bullcrap by people like Terence Fucking McKenna or his dishwater-dull-disciples.

tolman wrote:There certainly are worse things than sub-threshold psychedelic experiences.

For one, reading evangelistic bullcrap by people like Terence Fucking McKenna or his dishwater-dull-disciples.

By worse, he of course meant that you get an unfulfilled experience if the full-spectrum experience is what you're aiming for. Like he said, "It's all show and no go." It's like placing yourself in the rocket, and the launch process is initiated, but the rocket never leaves the ground. And by the way, if you're assuming I'm some sort of "disciple" with your little comment there, I'm not. People take these things in different fashion, and of course, the recreational dose is necessarily a light dose, because that'll still allow you to attend social gatherings, parties, concerts, etc. You wouldn't take these things a densely populated areas filled with light and noise, unless you had the proper set and settings. Unless this social setting was designated to your experience with a high-dose of psychedelic taking. "Dishwater-dull-disciples"? I bet you've never heard a talk of Terence's in its entirety. I guess it's probably because some of his talks are so dauntingly long that people thing it's some kind of challenge akin to reading the bible in its entirety. Well, it's nothing like that.

So by 'there's nothing worse...', he actually meant that it may be somewhat disappointing if someone was hoping for more.

Kafei wrote:I bet you've never heard a talk of Terence's in its entirety. ]I guess it's probably because some of his talks are so dauntingly long...

No, it's largely because the parts of talks I have listened to would have given me no encouragement to listen to a whole one even had it been only ten minutes long.

tolman wrote:So by 'there's nothing worse...', he actually meant that it may be somewhat disappointing if someone was hoping for more.

Well, sure, I often get into these sort of discussions or arguments with people, and it ultimately ends with either a close-minded rejection or someone's piqued interest in this experience. I believe it will challenge one's perspective, whether they consider themselves atheist or Buddhist. However, that's only if someone is given the description of the experience from someone who's undergone this experience and influences them with that sort of anticipation. If you have no expectation whatsoever, and you have a subthreshold dose, then you'll simply remain naïve to what these things are truly capable of.

tolman wrote:

Kafei wrote:I bet you've never heard a talk of Terence's in its entirety. ]I guess it's probably because some of his talks are so dauntingly long...

No, it's largely because the parts of talks I have listened to would have given me no encouragement to listen to a whole one even had it been only ten minutes long.

Well, I could suggest some talks that could perhaps change your mind. I'll list a few of my favorite Terence McKenna talks.





And if you've really got some leisure time...

Are there any talks dubbed over by people without intensely annoying voices?

He's very whiny and nasal, and his halting delivery is very annoying. Whether that's the result of too many drugs, pretentiousness, or something else, I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

But I sure know I couldn't stand to listen to the guy for any length of time even if he showed much sign of actually getting to a fucking point.

tolman wrote:Are there any talks dubbed over by people without intensely annoying voices?

He's very whiny and nasal, and his halting delivery is very annoying. Whether that's the result of too many drugs, pretentiousness, or something else, I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

But I sure know I couldn't stand to listen to the guy for any length of time even if he showed much sign of actually getting to a fucking point.

Oh well, if you can get past what you find a "annoying voice," you'll find that he does have a point and the content is intensely interesting. He's always thought provoking, super articulate, and like I said, his vocabulary is unrivaled from any other public speaker I've ever heard on the podium. However, if you simply can't get past the voice, then I guess you probably won't end up listening to any of his talks, and if you've already some ill-conceived notion of what he's about, then you're probably not going to read any material of his. What about Dennis McKenna? His brother's voice isn't as nasal, and he does speak about similar topics, and he actually has the credentials to back up some of these ideas, and give an opinion of them from a the position of what may be Terence's most extreme critic. If he felt Terence had a bad idea, he'd be the first to point it out.