best terence mckenna podcasts for a newcomer

[dreamwithinadream]

hey guys, i need some help! i have a friend who is really excited to start learning about the world of psychedelic thinking. i just told him about terence mckenna, deoxy.org, and some other things. i really want to get him into the podcasts but there are HUNDREDS to choose from! can you guys help me out with making a short list, like the top 5 podcasts he should listen to first? i think "culture and ideology are not your friends" would be a good first. any suggestions?

[WakingSleep]

I would have to agree that Psychedelic Salon #11- "Culture and Ideology are Not Your Friends" is a perfect introduction to Terence McKenna. I think this is my favorite lecture that I've heard of his. (The only thing about this particular lecture is the sound is a bit funny.... that is, it sounds a bit sped up. Or that Terence was breathing helium prior to giving this lecture.)

Another one of my favorites is Psychedelic Salon #102- "Build Your Own Wagon." (Also by McKenna). I also really enjoyed #56, which is Lorenzo's talk he gave at the Oracle Gathering in October of '06, and #57, which is Daniel Pinchbeck's talk from the same event.

Anyway, I think these talks are good starters.... they are all one's I've listened to multiple times..... hope my suggestions help!

[Ostritt]

He could check out Seeking the Stone, it's on googlevideo, one of my favourites. Also he could read The Archaic Revival and the Invisible Landscape. I just finished reading a book called Supernatural by Grahaham Hancock, it's amazing and I'd definitely recommend it as a good way for someone to get into entheogenic ideas in general and especially ethnobotany and general shamanic motifs. Peace

[Szifers]

"The World and its Double" (131 minutes, audio)
"Eros and Eschaton" (100 minutes, audio)

- these two are very typical and contentful ones.

But basically, just plunge into it. It's all good.

The trialogues are very good too, but the really dense and deep and authentic McKenna stuff is in the talks he did alone.

[Ostritt]

Yea good call, Eros and Echaton is one I play for people who have never heard him before. I read a book a few months ago called Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness which is a trialogue between McKenna, Sheldrake and Abraham. It's really interesting but very dense as well, stop concentrating for a few seconds and you end up reading the page again. Worth it, but I also prefer just McKenna alone.

[Pursewarden]

The first McKenna podcast I heard was 'In the Valley of Novelty," and it was number eight of ten.

But it started me listening to Psychedelic Salon. I would agree that the lecture, "Culture and Ideology are not your friends" would be a perfect place to start. I was so happy to hear someone say some of the things that he said. It sometimes just takes someone else pointing out that water is wet for it to really sink in.

I'm currently up to the third installment of "In the Valley of Novelty" and if it wasn't such heady material, I'm sure I would be finished with them by now, but I think that one of the reasons that I enjoy his lectures so much is that you walk away with so much to think about that it really would be a shame to just blow through them.

[cannawarrior]

The first McKenna podcast I heard was 'In the Valley of Novelty," and it was number eight of ten.

But it started me listening to Psychedelic Salon. I would agree that the lecture, "Culture and Ideology are not your friends" would be a perfect place to start. I was so happy to hear someone say some of the things that he said. It sometimes just takes someone else pointing out that water is wet for it to really sink in.

I found the same thing myself, but eventually realised 95% of what he says is simply common sense and recycled ideas.

What does Terrence McKenna Say?

1. We need innovative thinkers and scientists who aren't constrained by boundaries, culture, or government agendas

2. Human beings are not separate to nature but part of it. Control is an illusion and we are all part of the same universe that is heading towards the same inevitable conclusion.

3. The universe is becoming increasingly complex and is heading towards its resolution/end at an exponential rate.

4. We should be kind and compassionate to each other and live in an environmentally sustainable manner.

All these things are true, they are common sense, and unoriginal. The only difference to what McKenna says and what most others say are that psychedelic drugs are the key, and on this front he provides no good reason at all why this is believable.

Its not the psychedelic thinkers that are telling us the Earth is in trouble, its the scientists with cold hard logic.

[Ostritt]

Cannawarrior you have the habit of making sweeping statements about things that makes my right hand flick to the reply button. How long have you been studying McKenna's theories? Have you read everything he ever wrote, listened to all his lectures? The reason psychedelics are the key is because they are the most effective boundary-dissolving tool at our disposal and they have 40,000 years of human use behind them. McKenna never claimed that every idea he had was novel. Once one person has said something should we all just sit back and say phew, good thing that's out of the way?

Say a spiritual teacher says "it doesn't serve us to kill one another". Some people live by this, others don't understand it and kill each other. We don't just sit back and say, well it doesn't need to be said again because it was said once, surely everyone must understand it? Quite obviously they don't understand it so it may serve us to say it again and again and again until they do.

Science has failed in helping us live together, spreading love and unity, making us feel good to be alive. I honestly can't imagine living in such a way that my subjective experience takes a back seat to someone else's ideas about an external world I don't even think is real. McKenna touched the hearts of thousands of people, helped me to open my eyes to what was right in front of me and reminded me that freedom to explore consciousness is a spiritual birthright. What scientist does that? We obviously have very different criteria for success. What we need is a paradigm shift that stops for ever the behavior that destroys the planet, destroys our own freedoms and pushes us away from who we truly are. Cold hard logic will never do this, what we need is spiritual awareness. I can say this until I'm blue in the face but you'll probably disagree. It's something you can only understand through personal experience and while it may be conceived of conceptually it has to be felt subjectively.

On another note, don't you think before you make sweeping statements about a thinker who theorised about entheogens you should have a trip? It's a bit like someone never having driven a car going onto the Top Gear forum and saying how Clarkson doesn't know anything about cars. They may be right, but I wouldn't buy a car on their advice.

[cannawarrior]

Cannawarrior you have the habit of making sweeping statements about things that makes my right hand flick to the reply button. How long have you been studying McKenna's theories? Have you read everything he ever wrote, listened to all his lectures? The reason psychedelics are the key is because they are the most effective boundary-dissolving tool at our disposal and they have 40,000 years of human use behind them. McKenna never claimed that every idea he had was novel. Once one person has said something should we all just sit back and say phew, good thing that's out of the way?

Say a spiritual teacher says "it doesn't serve us to kill one another". Some people live by this, others don't understand it and kill each other. We don't just sit back and say, well it doesn't need to be said again because it was said once, surely everyone must understand it? Quite obviously they don't understand it so it may serve us to say it again and again and again until they do.

Science has failed in helping us live together, spreading love and unity, making us feel good to be alive. I honestly can't imagine living in such a way that my subjective experience takes a back seat to someone else's ideas about an external world I don't even think is real. McKenna touched the hearts of thousands of people, helped me to open my eyes to what was right in front of me and reminded me that freedom to explore consciousness is a spiritual birthright. What scientist does that? We obviously have very different criteria for success. What we need is a paradigm shift that stops for ever the behavior that destroys the planet, destroys our own freedoms and pushes us away from who we truly are. Cold hard logic will never do this, what we need is spiritual awareness. I can say this until I'm blue in the face but you'll probably disagree. It's something you can only understand through personal experience and while it may be conceived of conceptually it has to be felt subjectively.

On another note, don't you think before you make sweeping statements about a thinker who theorised about entheogens you should have a trip? It's a bit like someone never having driven a car going onto the Top Gear forum and saying how Clarkson doesn't know anything about cars. They may be right, but I wouldn't buy a car on their advice.

I find it interesting that you haven't attempted to answer my post and have attacked me personally.

I am not looking for a fight, are you?

I am not out to prove anyone right or wrong, I just want a discussion... :cool:

[cannawarrior]

Cannawarrior you have the habit of making sweeping statements about things that makes my right hand flick to the reply button. How long have you been studying McKenna's theories? Have you read everything he ever wrote, listened to all his lectures? The reason psychedelics are the key is because they are the most effective boundary-dissolving tool at our disposal and they have 40,000 years of human use behind them.

OK so McKenna said psychedelics lead to free thinking. My perspective is a very large percentage of psychedelic drug users are already thinking outside their cultural boundaries by taking the drug. So which came first the chicken or the egg? Also, in this 40,000 year history, why can't we find any examples of ideal human societies based on psychedelic drug use? Why have native tribal cultures, who until recently maintain uninterrupted use of psychedelics still operate under the primate social order and a brutal warlike existence and inhumane practices such as female circumcision? I have never been confronted with a good answer to these questions, so I remain unconvinced.

McKenna never claimed that every idea he had was novel. Once one person has said something should we all just sit back and say phew, good thing that's out of the way?

This is a common tactic snake oil salesmen use. They impress you with charisma, humor, and 95% truth. You agree with them. You are impressed. What they are saying strikes a chord deep within you. And they use that to convince you that the other 5% of what they are saying, in essence their special knowledge or wisdom, is also true. All I am saying is when you separate the unoriginal ideas from Terrence's rhetoric, its pure speculation. Who is meant to be impressed by pure speculation? I'm not.

Science has failed in helping us live together, spreading love and unity, making us feel good to be alive.

I agree, but that is not the job of science. You cannot blame and condemn science for something it is not supposed to do. Science is not a philosophy of life, it is a tool. Even scientists will tell you that.

I honestly can't imagine living in such a way that my subjective experience takes a back seat to someone else's ideas about an external world I don't even think is real.

That sounds like a very closed minded way of thinking. You are setting up quite a few boundaries there. I don't think Terrence would approve.

McKenna touched the hearts of thousands of people, helped me to open my eyes to what was right in front of me and reminded me that freedom to explore consciousness is a spiritual birthright. What scientist does that? We obviously have very different criteria for success. What we need is a paradigm shift that stops for ever the behavior that destroys the planet, destroys our own freedoms and pushes us away from who we truly are. Cold hard logic will never do this, what we need is spiritual awareness. I can say this until I'm blue in the face but you'll probably disagree. It's something you can only understand through personal experience and while it may be conceived of conceptually it has to be felt subjectively.

on the contrary, I agree. But it seems to me your opinions are very ego centric. You seem to have a feeling of superiority over me and anyone else who hasn't tripped. This is not surprising, as you previously said you couldn't imagine a life without psychedelics. This to me seems like a closed state of mind, and very ego centric. Just as governments and churches defend their power structures, I see your agitated reaction to my post as the same struggle. You view me as someone attacking your dogma, your power structure, your sense of superiority, and you put me in my place by telling me I need to trip first. I view your whole stance as the very state of mind Terrence McKenna was preaching against.

On another note, don't you think before you make sweeping statements about a thinker who theorised about entheogens you should have a trip? It's a bit like someone never having driven a car going onto the Top Gear forum and saying how Clarkson doesn't know anything about cars. They may be right, but I wouldn't buy a car on their advice.

No I don't agree with that at all. I am not trying to debunk someones personal experience. I am not replying to a trip report where someone said they have experienced enlightenment and I am trying to say its bullshit. I am discussing ideas in general. There is a big difference.

[Ostritt]

as you previously said you couldn't imagine a life without psychedelics

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said this. What I said was that I cannot imagine living without the faith in my own unlimited nature and the unity of everything. Certainly psychedelics support this, but they are not the only tool available to experience it. I trip infrequently and at relatively high doses, the vast majority of my time on this planet is spent within the concensus reality.

Also, in this 40,000 year history, why can't we find any examples of ideal human societies based on psychedelic drug use? Why have native tribal cultures, who until recently maintain uninterrupted use of psychedelics still operate under the primate social order and a brutal warlike existence and inhumane practices such as female circumcision?

Which shamanic tribes practice female circumcision? Hunter gather societies live at peace with one another, only resorting to war when it's absolutely necessary. They don't destroy the environment, they lack the plethora of psychiatric problems found in large Western societies, they have healthier diets and understand their environment better. If you think they have a brutal warlike existence, what about us?

All I am saying is when you separate the unoriginal ideas from Terrence's rhetoric, its pure speculation. Who is meant to be impressed by pure speculation? I'm not.


Yes it is speculation, but doesn't all science start with speculation? Isn't that what a hypothosis is? The difference is that with the psychedelic experience the primary factor is subjectivity. This doesn't mean we can't explore it as a group in a scientific way, it means that ultimately one person's idea of what it is is true for them and in no way better or worse than another person's. What you seem to be saying is that all philosophers, pretty much everyone except computer-like scientists should just shut up and go away because they can't prove what they're saying objectively. What I meant by saying I can't imagine living like this is that I don't believe it can lead to spiritual freedom and enlightenment, it just immerses the individual into 1 reality with the inherent laws that reality has (relativity, gravity etc.)

That sounds like a very closed minded way of thinking. You are setting up quite a few boundaries there. I don't think Terrence would approve.


Firstly, it's "Terence". Secondly, it's the complete opposite of closed minded. It implies an unlimited existence, where no one can create boundaries for my experience. True speculation is assuming that someone else's experience of reality can be applied to mine. I don't even know if what we call "red" is the same quality or if my red is actually your purple.

But it seems to me your opinions are very ego centric. You seem to have a feeling of superiority over me and anyone else who hasn't tripped.

This is a complete non-sequitur. I didn't say I was superior, I said that on the topic of entheogen philosophy I will always feel you are missing the subjective backing until you trip. That's my opinion, I never mentioned anything about that making me superior. Is a first grader superior to a second grader? No, the second grader simply has more experience. I have experience tripping, so there may be some things I have felt that you are unfamiliar with and that apply directly to the topics being discussed, because some, most of these things are translinguistic and our attempt to reconcile them with language is just that, an attempt. Ultimately it lies with the perceiver.


Just as governments and churches defend their power structures, I see your agitated reaction to my post as the same struggle. You view me as someone attacking your dogma, your power structure, your sense of superiority, and you put me in my place by telling me I need to trip first.

What dogma? What power structure? There is nothing you can take from me, there is nothing I can take from you, so where does this idea of a struggle come in? What is my dogma? I have no model of reality I'm forcing on you, I was simply defending the ideas of someone who I have great respect for. All I said was that I think you make sweeping statements and I feel you jump to conclusions very quickly. Especially if you're talking about McKenna in a way that makes him seem like some kind of chalatan, I'm going to call you on it because I disagree. I wasn't putting you in your place. It doesn't make you a worse person because you haven't tripped, of course not. I was saying that I think it's ridiculous for you to make these sweeping statements and start attacking ideas when you have no personal experience with the very phenomenon we are discussing.

[Ostritt]

as you previously said you couldn't imagine a life without psychedelics

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said this. What I said was that I cannot imagine living without the faith in my own unlimited nature and the unity of everything. Certainly psychedelics support this, but they are not the only tool available to experience it. I trip infrequently and at relatively high doses, the vast majority of my time on this planet is spent within the concensus reality.

Also, in this 40,000 year history, why can't we find any examples of ideal human societies based on psychedelic drug use? Why have native tribal cultures, who until recently maintain uninterrupted use of psychedelics still operate under the primate social order and a brutal warlike existence and inhumane practices such as female circumcision?

Which shamanic tribes practice female circumcision? Hunter gather societies live at peace with one another, only resorting to war when it's absolutely necessary. They don't destroy the environment, they lack the plethora of psychiatric problems found in large Western societies, they have healthier diets and understand their environment better. If you think they have a brutal warlike existence, what about us?

All I am saying is when you separate the unoriginal ideas from Terrence's rhetoric, its pure speculation. Who is meant to be impressed by pure speculation? I'm not.


Yes it is speculation, but doesn't all science start with speculation? Isn't that what a hypothosis is? The difference is that with the psychedelic experience the primary factor is subjectivity. This doesn't mean we can't explore it as a group in a scientific way, it means that ultimately one person's idea of what it is is true for them and in no way better or worse than another person's. What you seem to be saying is that all philosophers, pretty much everyone except computer-like scientists should just shut up and go away because they can't prove what they're saying objectively. What I meant by saying I can't imagine living like this is that I don't believe it can lead to spiritual freedom and enlightenment, it just immerses the individual into 1 reality with the inherent laws that reality has (relativity, gravity etc.)

That sounds like a very closed minded way of thinking. You are setting up quite a few boundaries there. I don't think Terrence would approve.


Firstly, it's "Terence". Secondly, it's the complete opposite of closed minded. It implies an unlimited existence, where no one can create boundaries for my experience. True speculation is assuming that someone else's experience of reality can be applied to mine. I don't even know if what we call "red" is the same quality or if my red is actually your purple.

But it seems to me your opinions are very ego centric. You seem to have a feeling of superiority over me and anyone else who hasn't tripped.

This is a complete non-sequitur. I didn't say I was superior, I said that on the topic of entheogen philosophy I will always feel you are missing the subjective backing until you trip. That's my opinion, I never mentioned anything about that making me superior. Is a first grader superior to a second grader? No, the second grader simply has more experience. I have experience tripping, so there may be some things I have felt that you are unfamiliar with and that apply directly to the topics being discussed, because some, most of these things are translinguistic and our attempt to reconcile them with language is just that, an attempt. Ultimately it lies with the perceiver.


Just as governments and churches defend their power structures, I see your agitated reaction to my post as the same struggle. You view me as someone attacking your dogma, your power structure, your sense of superiority, and you put me in my place by telling me I need to trip first.

What dogma? What power structure? There is nothing you can take from me, there is nothing I can take from you, so where does this idea of a struggle come in? What is my dogma? I have no model of reality I'm forcing on you, I was simply defending the ideas of someone who I have great respect for. All I said was that I think you make sweeping statements and I feel you jump to conclusions very quickly. Especially if you're talking about McKenna in a way that makes him seem like some kind of chalatan, I'm going to call you on it because I disagree. I wasn't putting you in your place. It doesn't make you a worse person because you haven't tripped, of course not. I was saying that I think it's ridiculous for you to make these sweeping statements and start attacking ideas when you have no personal experience with the very phenomenon we are discussing.

[Little Elf]

I agree with ostritt, Supernatural by Graham Hancock would be the best book to start with, and if for some reason McKenna audio doesn't do the trick one should read The Archaic Revival.

And than I realized dreamwithinadream is looking for podcasts... I don't like letting people get away with listening to just one or a couple, I always try to get my people as in to it as I am. But yeah just letting you know why I can't say which audio recording is the best... best of luck with you and your friend.

[cannawarrior]

as you previously said you couldn't imagine a life without psychedelics
Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

No I'm not, I'm responding to what you said. Your clear implication was life is shit without psychedelics.

I have never said this. What I said was that I cannot imagine living without the faith in my own unlimited nature and the unity of everything. Certainly psychedelics support this, but they are not the only tool available to experience it. I trip infrequently and at relatively high doses, the vast majority of my time on this planet is spent within the concensus reality.

you are free to have faith in anything you want. But your faith is not an argument or evidence any more than my faith is an argument or evidence. My view is that human experience is notoriously unreliable. If you truly believe in the weight of human experience, why do you reject the majority of human experience which doesn't agree with you?

Which shamanic tribes practice female circumcision? Hunter gather societies live at peace with one another, only resorting to war when it's absolutely necessary. They don't destroy the environment, they lack the plethora of psychiatric problems found in large Western societies, they have healthier diets and understand their environment better. If you think they have a brutal warlike existence, what about us?

dude, you are the one saying we have 40,000 year history of psychedelic drug use. You are the one claiming there is evidence there. So where is it? I am the one asking the question so its a bit silly to throw the burden of proof back onto me.

Yes it is speculation, but doesn't all science start with speculation? Isn't that what a hypothosis is? The difference is that with the psychedelic experience the primary factor is subjectivity. This doesn't mean we can't explore it as a group in a scientific way, it means that ultimately one person's idea of what it is is true for them and in no way better or worse than another person's. What you seem to be saying is that all philosophers, pretty much everyone except computer-like scientists should just shut up and go away because they can't prove what they're saying objectively. What I meant by saying I can't imagine living like this is that I don't believe it can lead to spiritual freedom and enlightenment, it just immerses the individual into 1 reality with the inherent laws that reality has (relativity, gravity etc.)

I don't know where you are getting this stuff from mate but its not me. You are imagining arguments, attributing them to me then refuting them. Please limit yourself to replying to things I actually say otherwise this thread will turn to mush (if it hasn't already)

This is a complete non-sequitur. I didn't say I was superior, I said that on the topic of entheogen philosophy I will always feel you are missing the subjective backing until you trip. That's my opinion, I never mentioned anything about that making me superior. Is a first grader superior to a second grader? No, the second grader simply has more experience. I have experience tripping, so there may be some things I have felt that you are unfamiliar with and that apply directly to the topics being discussed, because some, most of these things are translinguistic and our attempt to reconcile them with language is just that, an attempt. Ultimately it lies with the perceiver.

Fine, I accept that argument. It is pure personal experience and speculation. I agree. I am also not impressed. This same argument is used by most major religions. You could replace "Terence McKenna" with "Jesus Christ" and psychedelic drugs with "the bible" and your arguments are no different in essence than those of most religious fundamentalists. I don't believe in religions myself.

I was saying that I think it's ridiculous for you to make these sweeping statements and start attacking ideas when you have no personal experience with the very phenomenon we are discussing.

What ideas am I attacking? That is your ego talking. I simply said that 95% of what Terrence McKenna said are recycled ideas and the other 5% is pure speculation. And when it comes down to it, I think you agree with that, but you don't like it being put in those terms, because it bruises your ego.

What dogma?

The dogma that the secret of the universe lies within psychedelic drugs, and that those of us who haven't tripped aren't qualified to talk about it. These are very rigid ideas, and I find it surprising that a supposed psychedelic thinker has them.

You don't understand science in its completeness do you? I could put you in a room with the 5 most advanced human scientists in the world today and you would not understand their arguments. But, for anyone to use that fact and say you are not allowed to question science until you understand it fully would be ridiculous. And that is in effect what you are saying to me.

[Ostritt]

OK firstly I want to say if it seems like I'm attacking you I apologise. The reason I started this mushy debate is that I disagreed with what I saw as an insinuation that because McKenna's ideas weren't all novel he was somehow a charlatan.

My clear implication was not that life is shit without psychedelics. Please show a quote in which I suggested this, anywhere on the forum at any time. I am one of the most avid critics on this forum of the idea that psychedelics are the only path to enlightenment.

The evidence that 40,000 years of psychedelic drug use was beneficial is in the fact that ever since we lost a structure in which we could have these experiences humanity has been destroying the environment and people have been killing each other on a unprecedented scale, we even have weapons designed to wipe out millions within seconds. Physical and psychological illness is everywhere, the mind is feared, anything outside materialist parametres is deemed false instantly. If you want proof as to the history of entheogen use I'd refer you to David Lewis-Williams' neuropsychological model of the origins of cave art. Or the Eleusinian Mysteries and various other historical and anthropological evidence that unfortunately I can't point out directly because I'm also still a student.

To answer what ideas I felt you were attacking - the idea that because something cannot be proven objectively it is less valid than something that can be. You suggested that because McKenna's theories were speculative that he was somehow not worth the time of day. The reason thinkers like McKenna are so popular is because their ideas are not contingent on scientific theory, which denigrates anything that cannot be proven within the world of relativity.

You accused me of talking about science as it was a philosophy of life.
That's not what I meant; ironically what I meant to say (and should have said more succinctly) is that I felt you were applying scientific methodology to something that is quite simply beyond the grasp of science at this time. If the psychedelic experience could be put into a test tube and tested we would be doing that. In reality, this isn't possible so the best we can do is say what we think it is having perceived it. Neuroscience can tell you what's happening in the brain during a trip, but it can't tell you why these chemical reactions invoke the specific subjective experience. To me, it's the subjective experience that is the most important and most interesting because it's the only thing I can verify. In a nutshell, it's not the how and why I'm seeing/feeling this, it's the what I'm seeing and feeling and what it may mean that's important.

That's why I said that I thought you should trip before you commented so forcibly about these ideas, not because I think I'm superior (that doesn't even make sense to me) but because what we are doing is giving our impressions of the experience, not creating scientific theories based on them. This doesn't mean we abandon logic and reason, it means we apply them to experiences that science labels as false because they a)cannot be verified objectively and b) because science (except theoretical quantum physics as far as I know) doesn't accept that there can be any reality except this one right here.


It is pure personal experience and speculation. I agree. I am also not impressed. This same argument is used by most major religions. You could replace "Terence McKenna" with "Jesus Christ" and psychedelic drugs with "the bible" and your arguments are no different in essence than those of most religious fundamentalists.

I'm kind of confused as to what that bit refers to, but I think you mean just the general idea that the psychedelic experience is subjective and cannot be defined within any parametres or proven. Is that kind of on the ball? The fundamental difference is that McKenna never ever said "Reality is X" he said "based on my experiences and my research, I believe reality is something like X, but your X is just as valid as mine." That is incredibly different to saying "this is how things really are."

You may not believe me, but my response wasn't due to a bruised ego (at least not in the way that phrase connotes). I wanted to challenge you on what you said because I didn't agree with what I felt the suggestion was, namely that TM's theories are bunk because they are speculative. He frequently said they were speculation. However, they were based on years of research as well as personal experience. He often said how important it was not to multiply hypothoses without cause (part of Ockham's Razor) and it seemed that you were portraying him as some sort of waify mystic which he really wasn't.

Naturally we're both debaters and ultimately truth-seekers, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. I have respect for your ideas and the way you apply methodology to your exploration of psychedelic ideas, I also respect how you concede points and aren't afraid to go back on what you've said if you realise you could have said it better or you don't agree with yourself any more - I strive to do the same thing.

I'm not an asshole, I'm also not some fuzzy mystic who ignores science. I've spent hours and hours thinking about science and spirituality and I really believe they are moving toward reconciliation with each other.

However, I don't agree with what I see as materialist dogma which states that if something doesn't fit into X parametres it is simply not true. It's like saying the 95% of DNA that doesn't code for genes is "junk DNA" and useless, just because science didn't know what it is at the time. For me, a true scientist is someone who approaches something accepting that their model may be wrong and attempting to reconcile the two, not accepting their model must be right and seeing if that something fits into it.

The result of putting everything in set parametres is a gargantuan amount of things that don't fit in. The "supernatural". "Super" because it fits outside the box of parametres that constitutes science. The implication is that this must be false because it doesn't fit into the parametres. Until something is discovered and those parametres widen, then it is accepted. What I was trying to say is that I'd rather create my own parametres based on my experience, using reason and logic but not negating emotion and my own intuition.

One of the hardest things about the psychedelic experience within the world model of materialism is the overwhelming intuition that the experience is real, that the hallucinations are real and purposeful. You may trip and disagree with this, but because this intuition cannot be described in words I feel that after we've experienced the same thing our conversations will be much more fruitful.

The dogma that the secret of the universe lies within psychedelic drugs, and that those of us who haven't tripped aren't qualified to talk about it. These are very rigid ideas, and I find it surprising that a supposed psychedelic thinker has them.


Again, please refer to the threads on meditation vs psychedelics if you want to see how ridiculously out of character such an assertion would be for me. I hope I've been clearer in this post and shown that it's not that you aren't qualified to talk about it, it's that until you experience it you won't fully understand that dichotomy between subjective intuition and materialism that is inherent in psychedelic thinking. I'm not saying you'll trip and suddenly become a mystic, but at least you will be able to understand why some of us are spiritualists and some are rigid materialists. I don't need to push my views onto you and that's not what I'm trying to do - the reason I often take issue with what you post is that it can be very brusque and dismissive.

I probably did let my frustration harshen that first post and I apologise. However, that isn't to say that emotion drove my ideas. Hopefully we can create a good subjective vs objective debate out of this thread now! Peace

[cannawarrior]

OK firstly I want to say if it seems like I'm attacking you I apologise.

no need for apologies and the peace pipe has been smoked via PM. Maybe one day we can smoke it in person. :)

My clear implication was not that life is shit without psychedelics. Please show a quote in which I suggested this, anywhere on the forum at any time. I am one of the most avid critics on this forum of the idea that psychedelics are the only path to enlightenment.

ok this is the impression I got from your first post obviously I misunderstood.

The evidence that 40,000 years of psychedelic drug use was beneficial is in the fact that ever since we lost a structure in which we could have these experiences humanity has been destroying the environment and people have been killing each other on a unprecedented scale, we even have weapons designed to wipe out millions within seconds. Physical and psychological illness is everywhere, the mind is feared, anything outside materialist parametres is deemed false instantly. If you want proof as to the history of entheogen use I'd refer you to David Lewis-Williams' neuropsychological model of the origins of cave art. Or the Eleusinian Mysteries and various other historical and anthropological evidence that unfortunately I can't point out directly because I'm also still a student.

what you describe is the rise of technology. not the decline of psychedelic drug use. Of course there are theories that ancient cultures lived in psychedelic bliss, but that is not evidence. Tell me of a specific people, in a specific location in a specific time frame, that created utopia with psychedelic drug use. I don't think you can. On the other hand, the evidence that shamanic tribes lived in an unenlightened and inhumane manner is very clear. This is the very first page I came across when I entered shamanic warlike tribes into google. Some pretty nasty stuff in there... www.oregonpioneers.com/indian7.htm

To answer what ideas I felt you were attacking - the idea that because something cannot be proven objectively it is less valid than something that can be. You suggested that because McKenna's theories were speculative that he was somehow not worth the time of day. The reason thinkers like McKenna are so popular is because their ideas are not contingent on scientific theory, which denigrates anything that cannot be proven within the world of relativity.

I am not saying McKennas theories are crap. He may yet turn out to be the greatest prophet in human history. Who knows. I'm just saying I don't think he is saying anything special.

You accused me of talking about science as it was a philosophy of life.
That's not what I meant; ironically what I meant to say (and should have said more succinctly) is that I felt you were applying scientific methodology to something that is quite simply beyond the grasp of science at this time. If the psychedelic experience could be put into a test tube and tested we would be doing that. In reality, this isn't possible so the best we can do is say what we think it is having perceived it. Neuroscience can tell you what's happening in the brain during a trip, but it can't tell you why these chemical reactions invoke the specific subjective experience. To me, it's the subjective experience that is the most important and most interesting because it's the only thing I can verify. In a nutshell, it's not the how and why I'm seeing/feeling this, it's the what I'm seeing and feeling and what it may mean that's important.

OK let me clarify where I am coming from with science. I am not a champion of science. I am not a materialist or a reductionist. What I am saying is that science explains and agrees with the logical things McKenna says. If you regard him as having mystic insight, surely he has something to say other than what science can already tell us? We don't need McKenna to know the universe is coming to an end, mankind has the morality of apes, and that we are destroying the Earth. We already know this. Science and logic tell us this. I am not saying science and logic are absolute answers, I am saying that McKenna is not saying anything that can't also be said by logic and science, and therefore to me his ideas are nothing special.

That's why I said that I thought you should trip before you commented so forcibly about these ideas, not because I think I'm superior (that doesn't even make sense to me) but because what we are doing is giving our impressions of the experience, not creating scientific theories based on them. This doesn't mean we abandon logic and reason, it means we apply them to experiences that science labels as false because they a)cannot be verified objectively and b) because science (except theoretical quantum physics as far as I know) doesn't accept that there can be any reality except this one right here.

I don't doubt the power of the psychedelic experience in terms of appreciating life and a personal growth tool which is why I plan to be tripping myself very shortly. (btw, if any aussies out there can give me a hint on mushie supply or hunting areas on the east coast please send me a PM, I've been putting out feelers and coming up empty so far)

However, I do doubt this idea that psychedelic drug use leads to an ultimate truth. I don't doubt that people BELIEVE and FEEL the truth, and maybe I will have these same feelings myself, but at this time I maintain my opinion that human experience is unreliable.

<snip>


One of the hardest things about the psychedelic experience within the world model of materialism is the overwhelming intuition that the experience is real, that the hallucinations are real and purposeful. You may trip and disagree with this, but because this intuition cannot be described in words I feel that after we've experienced the same thing our conversations will be much more fruitful.

yup who knows. I might come back a changed man or I might come back with the same point of view. At the end of the day that isn't even the main issue for me. I'm not a philosopher, and if I have a cool time and enjoy life more afterwards I'll be happy. I'm a simple man with simple needs, I'll leave the saving of the world to others. but I enjoy debating the issue all the same :)

[Little Elf]

what you describe is the rise of technology. not the decline of psychedelic drug use. Of course there are theories that ancient cultures lived in psychedelic bliss, but that is not evidence. Tell me of a specific people, in a specific location in a specific time frame, that created utopia with psychedelic drug use. I don't think you can. On the other hand, the evidence that shamanic tribes lived in an unenlightened and inhumane manner is very clear. This is the very first page I came across when I entered shamanic warlike tribes into google. Some pretty nasty stuff in there... www.oregonpioneers.com/indian7.htm



Not meaning to argue, specially since what I'm about to add I have not actually read myself, but I'm going to as soon as I get some money for it... I just hate to think that the first link you got with that search found your way over to my washington brothers. Its probably exactly the kind of thinking you are carrying out that made it so not a single pure blood native is left. Thanks

http://www.matrixmasters.com/store/shop.php?c=001&n=1000&i=0295740094&x=I_Will_Fight_No_More_Forever_Chief_Joseph_and_th e_Nez_Perce_War

(book suggestion from my greenhouse owner friend)

[EROCx1]

Back to the best Terence McKenna Podcasts (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?cat=17). There are so many good ones. But the following were some exceptional ones that I really enjoyed.

Podcast 011 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=191) - “Culture and Ideology are not your friends”
Podcast 102 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=211)- “Build Your Own Damn Boat”
Podcast 113 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=233) - “Syntax of Psychedelic Time
Podcast 114 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=234) - “Psychedelic Society”
Podcast 117 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=239)- “The Importance of Psychedelics”
Podcast 119 (http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=242) - “A Crisis of Consciousness”

My favorites not yet podcasted are:

History Ends in Green
Tree Of Knowledge
Terence McKenna & Nicole Maxwell: Amazonian Shamanism
Under The Teaching Tree
Earth Trust
Original Tree Of Knowledge


There was one that was a few episodes where he lays down one of the most awesome spills I ever heard him say and he ends it with something like, "and we hunt down and kill everyone who doesn't agree with us and thats called having a culture". I heard it in my car and failed to write down which one it was to go back & listen to it again.

[Ostritt]

Hey Cannawarrior, you've placed me on a track to find my model shamanic tribe in real life. In my novel the shamanic tribe is to an extent a model society, not perfect but more enlightened than most so I'd like to find a real-life example, but if I can't it doesn't really matter too much - it doesn't mean it never existed. I think the argument isn't so much that shamanic societies are always highly evolved and have no war, but that they live in a way that creates less suffering than what we have now. Furthermore, they are not 'less evolved' than their technology which is the situation we find ourselves in now. There is a lot of archeological evidence suggesting that before agriculture and civilisation as we understand it now, we lived in equal, not male-dominated societies. That's what's referred to with the rebirth of the Goddess; a movement away from paternalistic, male dominant ways of seeing and understanding to a more equal and constructive model. Essentially, any group of people taking psychedelics, unless they are doing so in a negative set and setting, are probably going to be more peaceful than if they were dominated by cultural barriers.

[max_freakout]

One of my personal favourites is 'eros and the eschaton'

[max_freakout]

I am one of the most avid critics on this forum of the idea that psychedelics are the only path to enlightenment.

Has anyone ever actually claimed that they are?

[Ostritt]

Michael Hoffman :rolleyes:

Nah I know that's not exactly what he's claiming, I meant that I'm opposed to the idea in principle.

Did a little bit of research to find peaceful shamanic tribes cannawarrior:

For examples of peaceful shamanic tribes (most shamanic tribes are compared to any Western country) check out The Wondrous Mushroom by Gordon Wasson. He discovered a "psilocybin mushroom cult still active amontgst the Mazatec Indians of the mountainous country around Oaxaca. Far from being cruel and diabolic, this shamanistic cult was genle, wise and dedicated to healing." That's from Supernatural (been talking about it a lot lately, but it is full of useful information!) Unfortunately I haven't read Wasson's book but I'm sure someone has and can go into more detail

I also found a site dedicated to information about what anthropologists refer to as peaceful or peaceable tribes. Type in Shamanism in the search and you'll see that most of the tribes on there are shamanic.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org

You could also take McKenna's word for it as he actually had a degree in shamanism and spent a lot of time in the Amazon. :)

[max_freakout]

Michael Hoffman :rolleyes:

Nah I know that's not exactly what he's claiming, I meant that I'm opposed to the idea in principle.


It would be an absurd claim for anyone to make, heroin addicts and alcoholics can become enlightened

there is a great joke in 'Frasier' where Niles is describing how he became enlightened at a spelling competition

"I became one with the higher truth, and it was spelling" :D






however if you said that psychedelics were the only reliable way to become enlightened, you might have an argument..........

[max_freakout]

Where exactly did the claim come from that psychedelic use makes for a peaceful tribe? Why should this be the case and who ever claimed it was anyway?

[cannawarrior]

It would be an absurd claim for anyone to make, heroin addicts and alcoholics can become enlightened

there is a great joke in 'Frasier' where Niles is describing how he became enlightened at a spelling competition

"I became one with the higher truth, and it was spelling" :D

however if you said that psychedelics were the only reliable way to become enlightened, you might have an argument..........

yeah if you can consider perceptions of the human brain under the influence of drugs reliable.

I think its highly irresponsible to be touting drugs as solutions to life, especially ultimate solutions, which is what you are saying by claiming its a reliable path to enlightenment.

you are going to get a lot of kids in trouble giving this advice IMO not because of the dangers of the drugs (which is also a worry) but because they will hide form their life problems in drug induced states believing tripping is the answer.

[Ostritt]

I think that's quite an extreme view of it. Imo what's needed is a sociological context and individual paradigms in which entheogens can be used safely and constructively.

Where exactly did the claim come from that psychedelic use makes for a peaceful tribe?

I wasn't so much addressing the idea that psychedelic tribes have to be peaceful, just the idea that it wasn't possible to find a peaceful psychedelic tribe. However, I do think that the barrier dissolution inherent in the entheogenic experience can lead to more peaceful behavior.

[VictoriaPandora]

That link on the Northwest Indians looks like white propaganda to me.
Also, I think it is often erroneously assumed that North American tribes were "psychedelic". They weren't.

I'd am of the opinion that a vision quest is every bit as powerful as any psychedelic, I've done both and the gains from a vision quest are more stable in my experience. Dare I say, more "real".

Interesting thread, you guys let me know when you get it all figured out;)

[Phanerothyme]

Tree of Knowledge is the best, hands down. He covers everything in that set: the infamous McKenna DMT trip report, Stoned Apes, Timewave Zero, McLuhan, general metaphysics, all discussed at a fairly brisk pace, yet still in depth and mellow enough for the McKenna newcomer to understand (unlike something like Alien Dreamtime :eek: ) It's McKenna at his best IMO, both in terms of his electrifying speaking style and the ideas he presents.

[fortytwo]

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, "Light of Nature." I turned onto this one years ago, and began a list of the best ones and the best order.

My hard drive crashed and I lost it, but I know this was at the top.

[Little Elf]

Oh wow tree of knowledge is fabulous:D I can't believe I missed this one. Terence is so funny:D

[max_freakout]

yeah if you can consider perceptions of the human brain under the influence of drugs reliable.

I think its highly irresponsible to be touting drugs as solutions to life, especially ultimate solutions, which is what you are saying by claiming its a reliable path to enlightenment.

you are going to get a lot of kids in trouble giving this advice IMO not because of the dangers of the drugs (which is also a worry) but because they will hide form their life problems in drug induced states believing tripping is the answer.

Im only beıng honest, and ı never saıd anythıng about a solutıon to lıfe, those are your words not mıne

Psychedelıc trıppıng wont let you hıde from ANYTHING

[max_freakout]

That link on the Northwest Indians looks like white propaganda to me.
Also, I think it is often erroneously assumed that North American tribes were "psychedelic". They weren't.


how do you know thıs?

[Little Elf]

We are not here to look down upon others history/ culture, or own is bad enough I think. We can only be the best we can to end this damned history.

[Ostritt]

I think its highly irresponsible to be touting drugs as solutions to life, especially ultimate solutions, which is what you are saying by claiming its a reliable path to enlightenment.

you are going to get a lot of kids in trouble giving this advice IMO not because of the dangers of the drugs (which is also a worry) but because they will hide form their life problems in drug induced states believing tripping is the answer.

None of us are saying kids should start taking entheogens, we're talking about using them as they are meant to be used, with the right attitude and in the right context. You always jump to the extreme. Tell us of the dangers of psilocybin taken in the right context, or LSD or Ayahuasca. Caffeine has a higher LD50 than psilocybin. Tripping can be the answer to a lot of things, why don't you do some research into MAPS and the research they are doing into the psychotherapeutic effects of entheogens, or the history of MDMA use in psychotherapy, or, as I've said before - and this is not an attack on you- trip first and then talk about whether entheogens can be a path to enlightenment. For me, I have the same reaction reading forcefull comments like that as I would to a virgin talking about the spiritual and psychological applications of tantric sexuality.

[VictoriaPandora]

Max, I a Native American and none of the tribes I know used psychedelics in their ceremonies. The North Americans tribes are not like the S. American tribes in that sense. Of course most of us drive cars and smoke pot now and have been for years. And I don't doubt that there may have been some experimentation with peyote along the way. Though I have never met anyone that can verify this.
Tobacco was really the only sacred plant widely used and only in moderation. (You’d be surprised how many people still think the peace pipe was marijuana.) Rituals focused on dancing, drumming, games, sweat lodges, and vision quests. I have had my most profound and deep experiences in this way, and I would never want to be put in the position of having to choose between ingesting plant allies as opposed to contacting them in other ways. Nature is the epitome of psychedelic and there is more than one way to prop your eyes open.
Probably someone will find a link that says differently, but I have this annoying habit of believing what I know before I will accept second hand information from a wiki. So for now I have an opinion based on the tribes and members of tribes I have connected with. That in and of itself being tricky business for a half breed. Hell, maybe they just aren’t sharing their stash with me …hahaha.

[dreamwithinadream]

Nature is the epitome of psychedelic and there is more than one way to prop your eyes open.

Exactly.

Don't say that native american tribes weren't psychedelic just because they didn't use entheogens. Tell me that spending several days alone in the forest to find your animal spirit helper which is crucial to how you will live your life isn't psychedelic. Being psychedelic is all about perception. Nothing more. Anybody who has read Graham Hancock's book Supernatural, would know that there are multiple ways to induce trance like, aka psychedelic, states of mind.

[Ostritt]

Haha I read Victoria's post and was about to mention Supernatural before I read yours dreamwithinadream. It's all a means to a similar end, I think anyone who meditates or does yoga will agree that you don't have to take anything to feel the love of the transcendental other, source, or whatever you want to call it. I believe every moment of life is a spiritual experience, the difference only lies within your awareness at any one moment. Not sure if I'd be up for dancing until my nose bleeds, but I've often thought of going into the forest in the middle of the night and sitting on the ground for hours.

VictoriaPandora, what about Don Juan from Casteneda's books (which I don't like just to get out of the way)? I can't remember where his tribe originated. In any case, as we said above, a lack of entheogens does not mean a lack of psychedelic perception.

[Little Elf]

And if the culture is sane and healthy they won't treat the 2% of freaks as insane but as they should properly be treated as gifted with that connection

[VictoriaPandora]

I am pretty sure Don Juan was meant to be from Mexico, although I could be wrong.
And when you get into the S/W US you start to see a bit of blending and merging of tribes. Especially right down on the border, since those lines on a map don't really mean a lot.

Yeah, I was sure I would get Supernatural for Christmas, but instead I got David Ikes new one. So far it's pretty good. He's on a real Matrix bent at the start of the book and it's all making sense so far.

That link to Terences "Tree of Knowledge" talks was excellent. So, before I drift too much further off this thread I'd say yeah, it's definatley a good start.
He coveres a little bit of everything.

And yeah dreamwithinadream, I think psychedelic isn't a word the indians used at all, and just by common usage it has come to be associated with entheogens.

Now if the Lakota get their land back and we could move there and grow hemp, this country would be a better place, there I go...drifting again:)

[max_freakout]

Max, I a Native American and none of the tribes I know used psychedelics in their ceremonies. The North Americans tribes are not like the S. American tribes in that sense. Of course most of us drive cars and smoke pot now and have been for years. And I don't doubt that there may have been some experimentation with peyote along the way. Though I have never met anyone that can verify this.
Tobacco was really the only sacred plant widely used and only in moderation. (You’d be surprised how many people still think the peace pipe was marijuana.) Rituals focused on dancing, drumming, games, sweat lodges, and vision quests. I have had my most profound and deep experiences in this way, and I would never want to be put in the position of having to choose between ingesting plant allies as opposed to contacting them in other ways. Nature is the epitome of psychedelic and there is more than one way to prop your eyes open.
Probably someone will find a link that says differently, but I have this annoying habit of believing what I know before I will accept second hand information from a wiki. So for now I have an opinion based on the tribes and members of tribes I have connected with. That in and of itself being tricky business for a half breed. Hell, maybe they just aren’t sharing their stash with me …hahaha.



thankyou for that VP, i had never thought of the distinction between North and South amerıcan natives.

Mckenna said that mescaline use by natıve Americans was a relatively recent phenomenon, and that before the 1800s theır initiation rituals involved non-fatal poisonings (i dont know if that was north or south america anyway)

i am admittedly biased towards entheogens, just because it happened to be mushrooms that opened me up to these kinds of experiences, but i dont begrudge other methods except to say that i am confused how a person can be contactıng an 'other' ıf there ıs no actual 'other' ınvolved (ie no drugs :rolleyes:)


also, dont they use tobacco rustica as opposed to nicotiana? (ie a different type of tobacco from the one in cigarettes), and that rustica tobacco is supposed to have some kind of psychoactive effect?

[Ostritt]

Max, what if the Other is always there and the entheogens simply change your awareness so that you realise its presence? :rolleyes:

[EROCx1]

Many North American tribal people used Tobacco and Datura as entheogens.