The Original Ideas Of Terence McKenna

[madmanintheattic]

Over on the thread regarding the best McKenna material for a newcomer the thread was entirely hijacked by the allegation that McKenna had no original ideas.

Much to my amazement no one actually enumerated any of his original ideas in defense against these rather off-base accusations.

Just to get the conversation started I'll list the first two which come to mind:

1) The idea that humanity had an early relationship with coprophilic hallucinogenic mushrooms which had a tremendous impact on us as a species and contributed to the rapid expansion of our brain and was the etiology of religion, mythology and cognition among other things.

2) Timewave Zero. No one else I know of has ever even talked about time as something other than a featureless flat plain of simple duration let alone found calendars as well as an actual fractal structure imbedded in the King Wen sequence of the I Ching.

Anyone who thinks McKenna had no original ideas clearly is not familiar with his work (or just likes to cause trouble).

Two original ideas like this is more than any one thousand of the lumpen proletariat put together could hope for in a lifetime. (Cannawarrior I would like to know what original ideas of this scope you have had in your life?)

And please, if anyone out there knows of any other Bard as original and interesting and articulate as McKenna, do let me know. I have yet to find anyone who comes close nor anyone with ideas even in the same category.

With a little thought and a bit of digging I am sure the list of original ideas of McKenna could be quite long.

"There is no reason to be paranoid and little reason to be hopeful."
-Terence McKenna

[dreamwithinadream]

Hey, good job madmanintheattic. Couldn't have said it better myself. And friends of Mckenna need to stick up for the bard when ignorant comments like these are made. I just defended one myself in the thread about anxiety which was incidentally also high jacked by the tiresome debate between maxfreakout and meditation :D

[Szifers]

Those two were his only original ideas.

Once he said of his Novelty Theory that it was his only original idea.

His lectures are of course full of original perspectives, but he was mainly a commentator, not an inventor. His thing was more synthesis.

[Ostritt]

Those two were his only original ideas.

Once he said of his Novelty Theory that it was his only original idea.

His lectures are of course full of original perspectives, but he was mainly a commentator, not an inventor. His thing was more synthesis.

What about the experiment at la chorrera? Using sound to create a holographic image? Pretty original. Also, being one of the coolest people ever to live. That's pretty original.

[madmanintheattic]

Synthesize (verb) 1) To combine so as to form a new, complex product.
-The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language, International Edition (emphasis mine)

Sounds to me like a synthesizer is, by definition, a producer of originality. Hmmm. Also seems to me a commentator could provide new, original perspectives on the same old same old. McKenna was expert at new and original perspectives. Could it be that McKenna's assertion that the Timewave was his only original idea was his self-effacing humility, something most people, myself included, could use a lot more of?

Again, if anyone can direct me to another mere synthesizer and commentator who can hold a candle to McKenna, please point me in their direction.

"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, greed or sociopathy."
-original author unknown; current product synthesis of three different sources, one being KMO, one being myself

[Szifers]

Hypercarbolation was actually not his idea, but that of Denis. It wasn't about creating a holographic image, but something more ambituous. Explicating the unconscious by binding tryptamine molecules into the DNA, turning the world inside out, triggering the end of the world, or something like that.

How about visible language? The cephalopod as the titulary animal of the 21. century, and stuff. I don't know how original that is, though. And I don't even understand it. Isn't TV a visual language? Is it an improvement in the clarity of communication?

[Szifers]

Could it be that McKenna's assertion that the Timewave was his only original idea was his self-effacing humility, something most people, myself included, could use a lot more of?

Yea, that too. But also, the Timewave is special. It's original in the sense that it's not just an explication of what he read. It's an explication of what he hallucinated.

[Star]

I think the person that posted the allegations of Mckenna having no original ideas needs to define to us his notion of 'Original Idea'.

I agree that Mckenna was a commentator, not an inventor. However in my understanding of the word 'original' and ' idea' T. Mckenna did have Original Ideas. Original Ideas that evolved from other ideas and notions.

Just because an idea has been stemmed from another previously conceived idea, does not make that new idea un-original. If that were so, original ideas in this day an age would be near impossible to come across.

This is the only reasonable perspective i can come up with to say why someone would think that Mckenna has never had an original idea.

I think what i just said there made sense. :)

Star*

[max_freakout]

Isn't TV a visual language? Is it an improvement in the clarity of communication?


tv is no more visible language than a face to face conversation

the meaning of verbal language is encoded in auditory symbols, so meaning is transferred indirectly

with visual language, the meaning is directly communicated, by telepathic transference of pure understanding

PERFECT clarity of communication, resulting in the communicators becoming one with each other

[max_freakout]

I just defended one myself in the thread about anxiety which was incidentally also high jacked by the tiresome debate between maxfreakout and meditation :D

It was Ostritt, not me, who wanted to have that pointless debate in that thread, i even called it 'tired rubbish', so :p

and what i said about Mckenna was entirely accurate, it was based on his repeated assertion about psychedelic/clueless people

[psygnisfive]

As a linguist I'd like to point out that the use of the word language here is really rather loose and what you're calling visual "language" is more accurately described as communication. I'm saying this merely because calling it a "language" could lead to certain confusions about what it's actually doing (language does certain specific things that other forms of communication don't).

[dreamwithinadream]

"the only thing we are certain of after all these years is the insufficiency of explanation." - the Virgin Suicides


:(

[max_freakout]

As a linguist I'd like to point out that the use of the word language here is really rather loose and what you're calling visual "language" is more accurately described as communication. I'm saying this merely because calling it a "language" could lead to certain confusions about what it's actually doing (language does certain specific things that other forms of communication don't).

yes i agree, visible communication

visible transference of meaning

[psygnisfive]

yes i agree, visible communication

visible transference of meaning

Indeed. You know, speaking of visual /language/, in support of some kind of benefit of /visual/ communication, there have been experiments to determine if you can improve a persons speed reading techniques, whereby the person is shown the words of a text in sequence, with varying lengths of time for each word and for semantic pauses (like at commands or periods). Eventually a person can read upwards of a few THOUSAND words a minute. The reasoning behind this is that when you read, reading with your internal voice has a data flow like Visual Centers -> Auditory Centers -> Language Centers, because to have an inner voice your brain imagines reading aloud. The other method, tho, skips the auditory centers and goes right to language centers, speaking up processing enormously, moving it probably closer to what you could comprehend by listening to speed talking, possibly even more.

This isn't quite what you meant, ofcourse, by visual communication but it's still interesting.

Regarding true visual communication, I'd wonder how expressive it can be. You get certain things that you wouldn't from just language (emotion, facial expression, etc.), but you get those from face to face too. Visual communication in the video-manipulation sense has other benefits like being able to control presentation. But I don't know if a sort of "image projection" would work to really communicate from person to person in absence of language. Something more akin to raw meaning conveyance is probably more capable of communicating, but I don't believe that such a thing is theoretically possible, philosophically. That's the postmodernist side of me coming out, I suppose. :p

[max_freakout]

Something more akin to raw meaning conveyance is probably more capable of communicating, but I don't believe that such a thing is theoretically possible, philosophically. That's the postmodernist side of me coming out, I suppose. :p

this is precisely what it is, and it exists in the psychedelic state, it is completely real

the most profound thing you get from it is the oneness, you cannot disagree with the information you are presented, just as you cannot lie to it, it is complete honesty in the face of the true other, so that you are the other, whereas verbal communication necesarily involves multiple communicators, with visual communication, this idea all of a sudden becomes a logical paradox, there is only one, the communicator and the beholder are identical

Mckenna called it 'true nakedness'

[psygnisfive]

this is precisely what it is, and it exists in the psychedelic state, it is completely real

It'd be interesting to explore this in detail. I can give you a number of reasons why I think it'd be impossible to truly do.

the most profound thing you get from it is the oneness, you cannot disagree with the information you are presented, just as you cannot lie to it, it is complete honesty in the face of the true other, so that you are the other, whereas verbal communication necesarily involves multiple communicators, with visual communication, this idea all of a sudden becomes a logical paradox, there is only one, the communicator and the beholder are identical

Mckenna called it 'true nakedness'

What I wonder tho is is it true experiencing the other persons mind, or is it the mere illusion. The human mind can construct all sorts of wonderful illusions of who and what it is.

Max, do you know if there's a way to induce it with reliability, or does it just happen unpredictably?

[madmanintheattic]

It is so interesting how these threads get sidetracked and hijacked by what seems to me to be mostly nit-picking on semantics by people who really need to show off how much they know and that they know more than anybody else. Half this thread has been devoted to discussion not in the least related to the Original Ideas of Terence McKenna but rather to nit-picking.

[Szifers]

yes i agree, visible communication

visible transference of meaning

He sometimes talked about it as something like visual representation. Like in the case of cephalopod visual communication. Or when talking about a visual virtual reality where every word that you utter is represented by a visual symbol.

But in other cases he referred to it as seeng the actual meaning, without any possible ambivalence as to what it means.

I think he just meant a general direction. Not something very concrete. Visual language can mean many things.

[max_freakout]

He sometimes talked about it as something like visual representation. Like in the case of cephalopod visual communication. Or when talking about a visual virtual reality where every word that you utter is represented by a visual symbol.

But in other cases he referred to it as seeng the actual meaning, without any possible ambivalence as to what it means.

I think he just meant a general direction. Not something very concrete. Visual language can mean many things.

but human beings have a mental world of meaning much deeper than cephalopods (and any other animal), i think that is important to understand the analogy with cephalopods, when that same, visual mode of communication is employed by the human mind, it is this visual, telepathic transference of transcendental meaning, where the subject and object become one with each other

[dreamwithinadream]

but human beings have a mental world of meaning much deeper than cephalopods (and any other animal)

some humans. i think it would be pretty cool to be a cephalopod :p

[max_freakout]

another original idea of his, which i talked about on psychonautica 27, was that psilocybe mushrooms might be extra-terrestrial, based on the reproductive method of sporulation

[psygnisfive]

another original idea of his, which i talked about on psychonautica 27, was that psilocybe mushrooms might be extra-terrestrial, based on the reproductive method of sporulation

Hm. I think for this to be true, all life on the planet would've had to've started off-planet, which has been hypothesized. I say this because there are clear genetic relations between non-fungal life and fungal life, and there are fungal precursor species as well.

[eschatonic]

2) Timewave Zero. No one else I know of has ever even talked about time as something other than a featureless flat plain of simple duration let alone found calendars as well as an actual fractal structure imbedded in the King Wen sequence of the I Ching.

to what extent is this an original idea.
i know he claims to have had no knowledge of the Mayan calendar when he formed the idea but the Mayan calender involves the ideas of repeating resonant cycles of time and the exponential acceleration of time approaching 2012. it also includes the idea of increasing novelty.

Is it just the idea that the I-Ching is showing the same thing as the mayan calendar or the graph or what:confused:

[Szifers]

to what extent is this an original idea.
i know he claims to have had no knowledge of the Mayan calendar when he formed the idea but the Mayan calender involves the ideas of repeating resonant cycles of time and the exponential acceleration of time approaching 2012. it also includes the idea of increasing novelty.

Is it just the idea that the I-Ching is showing the same thing as the mayan calendar or the graph or what:confused:

It's the graph showing the change of novelty at any moment in time.

[psygnisfive]

afaik the Mayan calendar is merely just another calendar, the only major difference being that it has time scales larger than, say, the millennium. What source do you have for the mayans believing in the cyclicality of time, and also the acceleration of such and such towards the end of the current baktun?

[eschatonic]

afaik the Mayan calendar is merely just another calendar, the only major difference being that it has time scales larger than, say, the millennium. What source do you have for the mayans believing in the cyclicality of time, and also the acceleration of such and such towards the end of the current baktun?

the Mayan calender consits of multiple separate calenders that work together
The Tzolkin is the personal calender of 260 days. there are 13 aspects and 20 intentions so it takes 260 days to get back to the same intent and aspect.These intentions and aspects are the characteristics of time that repeat.
There is also the TUN calender. this is known as the prophetic calender and consists of 360 days. each day in this calender also has to do with bigger scopes of creation or the cycles up and down of consciousness and civilisation. These two calendars wold not get back to the same intent aspect and day on the Tun cycle for 52 years. this is when a Maya became an elder because then they have experienced every possible combination on the calender.
The Mayans also believed that there are 9 levels to creation that will exist.
each level of creation gets smaller at an exponential rate leading to 2012.
This also includes the idea of increasing novelty because these levels of creation build up on top of each other to form a pyramid with the shortest level of creation on top.

I am no expert on this and there is allot more to it so it's worth having a read yourself.

[Steeldiehard]

tv is no more visible language than a face to face conversation

the meaning of verbal language is encoded in auditory symbols, so meaning is transferred indirectly

with visual language, the meaning is directly communicated, by telepathic transference of pure understanding

PERFECT clarity of communication, resulting in the communicators becoming one with each other

Example, Max? :)

[Steeldiehard]

but human beings have a mental world of meaning much deeper than cephalopods (and any other animal)

Not certain how you know this for certain Max. Humans cannot communicate with a cephalopod (or any other non-human) on the same level another one of its species. :) Then again, maybe we can and I've just not experienced it yet. ;)

Steel

[eschatonic]

Check out these videos on the mayan calender

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1030536695965417017&q=ian+lungold&total=182&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2832986272853534626&q=ian+lungold&total=182&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[WakingSleep]

3 questions come to mind here:

1- What is an original idea, and how can one prove an idea to be original?
2- How many people here can lay claim to having any original ideas? I wouldn't be so bold. If we come away from this lifetime with even one original idea, I consider that a blessing.
3- What does it matter?

I have never heard McKenna lay claim to any of his ideas being original, save Timewave Zero (and this even was downloaded into his mind from perhaps an extra-dimensional intelligence, by his own account.)

McKenna was a Bard, and had an amazing mind for storing and interpreting information. He went into the thick of it and brought us back stories... stories that by most accounts cannot be explained through spoken language.

In the past few years since I have discovered McKenna, I have not only had my mind open to a number of other amazing minds and ideas, but I have also been inspired more than I can say, and to me at least, that is what is most important.

[Ostritt]

3 questions come to mind here:

1- What is an original idea, and how can one prove an idea to be original?
2- How many people here can lay claim to having any original ideas? I wouldn't be so bold. If we come away from this lifetime with even one original idea, I consider that a blessing.
3- What does it matter?

I have never heard McKenna lay claim to any of his ideas being original, save Timewave Zero (and this even was downloaded into his mind from perhaps an extra-dimensional intelligence, by his own account.)

McKenna was a Bard, and had an amazing mind for storing and interpreting information. He went into the thick of it and brought us back stories... stories that by most accounts cannot be explained through spoken language.

In the past few years since I have discovered McKenna, I have not only had my mind open to a number of other amazing minds and ideas, but I have also been inspired more than I can say, and to me at least, that is what is most important.

It depends how you define original. If you said original as "never existed, anywhere" I'd say there's no such thing, as everything that can exists is, somewhere. However, if you mean "something unique" I'd say we do something unique that's never been done before every day.

How about a poem? A poem holds a multiplicity of meaning.

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

-William Carlos Williams

What does that mean? :D What do you want it to mean? If you can prove your ideas and base them in the text then your point is valid. The poem holds many many ideas, many of which are unique to the perceiver. It's all infinite :eek::eek:

[WakingSleep]

Well put, my friend.

[Mark_W]

I just listened to Terence's lecture "Opening the Doors of Creativity", in which he seemed to present many original ideas (he even presented at least one of them as such). Perhaps they were of lesser magnitude than time wave zero, but then again perhaps not.

On a side note, Mckenna is an amazing figure. Its easy to forget that he almost single handedly brought psilocybin mushrooms into prominance in the West (perhaps an overstatement, but hear me out), first having brought them back from South America and writing a technical book about how to grow them. And then, following that up with an even more influencial role in public speaking, and being a writer, scholar, philosopher, and a first rate intellectual. Mckenna is a tryptamine-powered superman of the psychedelic community.

[max_freakout]

Example, Max? :)

the elfin language described by Mckenna

[max_freakout]

Not certain how you know this for certain Max. Humans cannot communicate with a cephalopod (or any other non-human) on the same level another one of its species. :) Then again, maybe we can and I've just not experienced it yet. ;)

Steel


cephalopods dont have culture and history like humans do

[Boredoms]

What is all of you all's favorite McKenna recording out there on the net? I personally love one titled "Light of 3rd Millenium" recorded in Chicago, great stuff. Also "Culture and Ideology are not your Friends," from the salon podcast is up there as well.

[psygnisfive]

the Mayan calender consits of multiple separate calenders that work together
The Tzolkin is the personal calender of 260 days. there are 13 aspects and 20 intentions so it takes 260 days to get back to the same intent and aspect.These intentions and aspects are the characteristics of time that repeat.
There is also the TUN calender. this is known as the prophetic calender and consists of 360 days. each day in this calender also has to do with bigger scopes of creation or the cycles up and down of consciousness and civilisation. These two calendars wold not get back to the same intent aspect and day on the Tun cycle for 52 years. this is when a Maya became an elder because then they have experienced every possible combination on the calender.
The Mayans also believed that there are 9 levels to creation that will exist.
each level of creation gets smaller at an exponential rate leading to 2012.
This also includes the idea of increasing novelty because these levels of creation build up on top of each other to form a pyramid with the shortest level of creation on top.

I am no expert on this and there is allot more to it so it's worth having a read yourself.

This might be the case, but the question was what is your SOURCE. As in, are you getting this from some anthropological research, or what? I'd like to know where this claim about their calendrics comes from before I comment on how interesting it is that they were talking about exponentially increasing something. If they did indeed talk about this, cool, but if this appears nowhere in Mayan literature and only in sources connected to McKenna then ...

[eschatonic]

all the information is from the video i posted and that takes its info from carl callermans book Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar.

[psygnisfive]

cephalopods dont have culture and history like humans do

Cephalopods also don't seem to use language despite being quite intelligent. A shame, really, because it'd be interesting to see what non-human language looks like. :(

[psygnisfive]

all the information is from the video i posted and that takes its info from carl callermans book Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar.

Hm. Well, according to Wikipedia, according to the archaeological community, the Mayans didn't believe the world would end at the beginning of the 13th baktun. They'd consider it worthy of a monumental party, but not a world ending event. King Pacal of Palenque, for instance, spoke of people celebrating his ascension to the thrown in 4000 AD, clearly showing that he at least didn't believe in any world ending event at the new baktun. I'll have to look for this book to see where he gets the idea of acceleration, tho.

[Steeldiehard]

cephalopods dont have culture and history like humans do

I agree that they're definitely not human. :) Are you seriously denying the possibility that cephalopods have history and culture that is species-specific? What would Terence say? :)

[psygnisfive]

I'm starting to watch these videos and already I'm beginning to like this guy. I don't know where he's going with talking about consciousness, but his definition is precisely the definition I've been arguing for. <3it.

lol

[psygnisfive]

I agree that they're definitely not human. :) Are you seriously denying the possibility that cephalopods have history and culture that is species-specific? What would Terence say? :)

Surely it would be definitionally the case. Culture is defined as such-and-such in relation to human activities, namely traditions, language, etc. If cephalopods don't have this, then by definition they don't have culture. History I think is another issue because history obviously can be used to mean either just a collection of things that happened to them in the past, or it can mean an understanding of their own past as a collective whole, and I don't think cephalopods have the latter, so in that sense they don't have a history.

[eschatonic]

Hm. Well, according to Wikipedia, according to the archaeological community, the Mayans didn't believe the world would end at the beginning of the 13th baktun. They'd consider it worthy of a monumental party, but not a world ending event. King Pacal of Palenque, for instance, spoke of people celebrating his ascension to the thrown in 4000 AD, clearly showing that he at least didn't believe in any world ending event at the new baktun. I'll have to look for this book to see where he gets the idea of acceleration, tho.
I never said what would happen in 2012 and I don't think Terence thought it was the end of the world but it looks like something is going to happen. i think he actually says its the end of history
watch the video and you will see what i mean. look at this image and you can see the levels of creation getting shorter and shorter over time. you can also see why they build pyramids with 9 levels.

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/carl.jpg

[Steeldiehard]

Surely it would be definitionally the case. Culture is defined as such-and-such in relation to human activities, namely traditions, language, etc. If cephalopods don't have this, then by definition they don't have culture. History I think is another issue because history obviously can be used to mean either just a collection of things that happened to them in the past, or it can mean an understanding of their own past as a collective whole, and I don't think cephalopods have the latter, so in that sense they don't have a history.

Or you could just say, "Steel, I really can't be certain, but from the only perspective I have (Human), it does not seem possible." :)

[psygnisfive]

I never said what would happen in 2012 and I don't think Terence thought it was the end of the world but it looks like something is going to happen. i think he actually says its the end of history
watch the video and you will see what i mean. look at this image and you can see the levels of creation getting shorter and shorter over time. you can also see why they build pyramids with 9 levels.

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/carl.jpg

I don't see any units getting shorter over time, I see larger units being composed of smaller units, as in _every_ calendar. Consider:

1 winal = 20 days
1 tun = 18 winal
1 katun = 20 tun
1 baktun = 20 katun
etc.

1 week = 7 days
1 month ~= 4 weeks
1 year = 12 months / 52 weeks
1 decade = 10 years
1 century = 10 decades
1 millennium = 10 centuries

There only differences between the Mayan calendar and the Gregorian calendar is that the Mayan calendar is more regular in its base, and the base is 20 not 10 (which is no shock since the Mayans used a base 20 number system not a base 10 like we use).

But both cases uses some sort of base-to-power relationship. 1 super-unit = base # of sub-units.

If your base is 10, you get decade/century/millennium, if your base is 20, you get katun/baktun/etc. This doesn't mean time is accelerating exponentially, it just means that your units of measure are rationally subdivided. It's just like counting. We have a word for units (one) a word for 10 units (ten), a word for 10 tens (hundred), a word for 10 hundreds (thousand).

Is this your only source for the idea that Mayans conceived of an acceleration of time?

[psygnisfive]

Or you could just say, "Steel, I really can't be certain, but from the only perspective I have (Human), it does not seem possible." :)

Ofcourse I can be certain. lol. It's definitional, dude. There's no perspective involved. That's like saying you can't be certain that there are no married bachelors, but from your perspective there aren't. Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried men, just like culture is, by definition, language, tradition, etc. Perspective (i.e. available information) is involved only in determining whether someone meets those definitions. Since we have no evidence that cephalopods don't have these things, then by definition they don't have culture. It's not a bad thing, it just means they don't have culture. Perhaps in the future we'll find evidence that they do, which would be fascinating, but given what we know about them, the word culture is not appropriate in describing their behaviors.

[eschatonic]

sorry i meant to use this

http://www.mayanmajix.com/lab_9underworlds.jpg

[psygnisfive]

So I'm watching this guy's talk and it's kind of.. well, he's talking lots of about Mayan calendrics. And he's talking about how he thinks calendrics influence our outlook on life (somehow Gregorian calendar = commercial christmas. wtf?). He's also denigrating archaeologists, saying they "threw out" the tzolkin calendar. What he means by that I have no idea, but I can't think of any way in which archeologists threw it out.

[psygnisfive]

1769: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1769_in_science

Dunno if anything significant happened in that year, but maybe. The date is also not 256 years before now OR before 2012 but is 243 years before 2012, and 1756 is 256 years before 2012. It's 256 years before 2025, however, which is, interestingly, one of the earlier dates predicted for the beginning of the Singularity.

3100 bc: 4th century bc is indeed when a good amount of protowriting is from, but it's certainly not the earliest example of something that we might call writing. the 31st century BC is right the right for 5125 years before 2012, tho. Same goes for 2025.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

100kya: Noone knows when language started up. We don't have records. The Great Leap Forward, which probably accompanied language, culture, etc. was about 50kya.

2mya: Defining humans is important to determine when the first human existed. Australopithecus, which is biologically called the first hominid, was about 3-4mya. The Toumai skull, considered the first hominid, is 6-7mya. At 2mya we have Homo habilis, the first proper tool making hominid. Not a direct ancestor species of humanity, but surely tool making hominids is important in the history of the planet, so this is another nice match to the accumulation of calendar units.

41mya: Humans aren't descended from monkeys (humans are aps, and monkeys and apes are separate groups of primates), so I can't see why their evolution matters. However, About 40mya, simiiformes branched from the main primate clade into what would eventually become humans, so I'll take "monkeys" here to mean really "simiiformes". Another nice parallel.

820mya: This is where it gets wildly inaccurate. The first fossils you could consider animals are from 610mya. Perhaps there's 200m years of unattested fossils, fuzzy definitions of what we're calling animals, or whatever you want to say to account for this, I could believe it. But nothing known related to animals appearing around 820mya. This was smack in the middle of the precambrian period when life was really developing. Maybe it's the mark of when complex life started taking off? But nothing known.

16.4bya: The big bang happened about 13.7bya, which is definitely not the right date given. But who knows? Pre-big-bang is hypothesized in string theory, maybe this is some relevant pre-big-bang date? Or maybe the _apparent_ date of the big bang was 13.7bya but pre 13.7bya the conditions of the universe make it hard to model accurately with our current knowledge?

So overall, aligning the count-to date to be 2025, things seem to look very sexy when it comes to the stuff that occurred historically. And that's what the chart you're using says (since it aligns 256 years "before some year X" as being 1769, not 1756). Given that, the let my look at the other two dates that are marked by (?):

2025 - 12.8 = 2012.2 (AHA!). 0.2 of a year is 73 days => March 14 (4 days after my birthday :D)

2025 - 0.72 = 262.8 into 2024 = September 19th 2024.

If this little coincidence of calendar units has any meaning whatsoever, I'm willing to bet those two dates are significant as well. Somewhere around there, anyway. Obviously the precise dates will vary depending on what day in 2025 "it" occurs. But those two years do seem pivotal in this: 2012 and 2024, and then 2025 where it "ends".

I don't know if the Mayans themselves had anything to say about this sort of exponential speeding up of time, but it does look remarkably like Kurzweil's countdown to Singularity, using a lot of similar markers. Hats off the Mayans for potentially having inside knowledge into history and for predicting the Vingean Singularity tho. :)

[eschatonic]

I want to state again that i am no expert on this so dont take my word for it but i think the dates stated are when that thing is fully established rather than just beggining.

[psygnisfive]

More commentary on Lungold: The Maya have no recorded history before about 300 bc, so how he got the notion that the Mayan's have been using the Tzolkin calendar for 5,000 years I can't imagine. *cough*bullshit*cough*

There's also no information on intentions or aspects on the Wiki article on tzolkin, but there are 20 gods for each day which might be considered "aspects". The article does mention that some names are based on calendar days, tho, as is the mayan astrological tradition, but the article on mayan astrology also mentions neither aspects nor intentions.

Edit: His "name" for the date is also fishy. None of those gods are either for communication or transformation, so...

[psygnisfive]

I want to state again that i am no expert on this so dont take my word for it but i think the dates stated are when that thing is fully established rather than just beggining.

I suppose, but I cant think of anything interesting happening or culminating in 1769. But that doesn't mean nothing did.

I do like the 2025 date tho, being a Singularitarian myself. ;)

[psygnisfive]

I would love to run this guys talk by a Mayanologist to see how accurate his stuff is.

[psygnisfive]

Also: Archaeology does NOT mean the study of arches, architecture, etc. it means the study of old things, from the Greek archaios, meaning "primal, ancient, old", akin to english archaic.

Can someone explain why such trivial things are so often wrong when it comes to Newagists? I don't get it. I don't understand why you have to make something up to prove your point. If your point is valid, don't invent stuff. But he's inventing stuff. Why? I don't get it.

[Steeldiehard]

Ofcourse I can be certain. lol. It's definitional, dude. There's no perspective involved. That's like saying you can't be certain that there are no married bachelors, but from your perspective there aren't. Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried men, just like culture is, by definition, language, tradition, etc. Perspective (i.e. available information) is involved only in determining whether someone meets those definitions. Since we have no evidence that cephalopods don't have these things, then by definition they don't have culture. It's not a bad thing, it just means they don't have culture. Perhaps in the future we'll find evidence that they do, which would be fascinating, but given what we know about them, the word culture is not appropriate in describing their behaviors.

LOL...ok, since we have no knowledge of cephalopod equivalent of the term culture...our human definition does not apply. :)

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.

Steel

[psygnisfive]

LOL...ok, since we have no knowledge of cephalopod equivalent of the term culture...our human definition does not apply. :)

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit.

Steel

..

I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree. Yes, "culture" doesn't apply to cephalopods because they don't, as far as anyone knows, have the things that are collectively called culture. But I think it's a bit odd to look for a cephalopod "equivalent". I mean, that's a meaningless term, without some explanation of what an equivalent-of-culture is. Like I said, it's like saying that maybe there's some way in which the term bachelor can be applied to a woman or married man. There is no such way, because "bachelor" is definitional, as is "culture". So I don't know what you would mean by an equivalent, or "some way" that they have culture but not in any way that we use the term culture (if that were the case, then how is it _culture_). If it's something other than what we mean when we say culture, then it's not culture, because culture doesn't mean that. There's no way the word could apply to anything other than what it applies to because of it's meaning.

[eschatonic]

I would love to run this guys talk by a Mayanologist to see how accurate his stuff is.
he claims to have stayed with the mayan elders for many months and conferred with them.

I, Ian Xel Lungold, have personally traveled to the Mayan lands and have met with the Mayan Elders of the Council of Indigenous Priests and Elders concerning this issue. To those same Elders, I have sworn my oath to do my best to straighten out the confusion concerning the Mayan calendar to the world’s population.


http://www.mayanmajix.com/art839.html

[psygnisfive]

he claims to have stayed with the mayan elders for many months and conferred with them.

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art839.html

I can't trust him to not be lying when he says he's not lying. lol. I already doubt is credibility given that he's the ONLY person who seems to have discovered this stuff, and given that he can't get some basic stuff right. So I need more than just his word that he's not making shit up.

[eschatonic]

. I already doubt is credibility given that he's the ONLY person who seems to have discovered this stuff,.

All of the information in his talks is out of a book by a different guy

[psygnisfive]

"All of the mayan pyramids are either 5 or 9 levels."

Uh...

Temple of the Masonry Altars, Altun Ha - 5 clear levels
Structure II, Calakmul - No clear levels
Temple, Caracol - Atleast 9, but no clear number
Pyramids, Comalcalco - Atleast 10, maybe 11
El Castillo, Chichen Itza - 9 clear levels
Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza - 3 or 4 levels
High Priest's Temple, Chichen Itza - Atleast 7 clear levels
Temple of the Cross, Palenque - 5 or 6 clear levels
Temple I, Tikal - 9 clear levels
Temple II, Tikal - 3 or 4 clear levels
Temple V, Tikal - Atleast 5 clear levels
Pyramid of the Magician, Uxmal - Atleast 2 clear levels
The Great Pyramid, Uxmal - 9 clear levels

So yes, SOME pyramids have 5 or 9 levels, but definitely not _ALL_ of them. More blatant falsehoods and I'm only 48 minutes into the first lecture.

:\

BTW is it just me or is Tikal fucking _sexy_? I love the Tikal pyramids.

All of the information in his talks is out of a book by a different guy

So wait, who provided this information then? I'm confused.

[eschatonic]

Carl Callerman

[psygnisfive]

Going by the video, the planetary age was 1755, not 1769 as the chart you showed says. Going by that number it fits the 2012 number better. Still nothing interesting happening there, but whatever.

Carl Callerman

So Carl Callerman is the source of this astrology, and he's the one who claims to have spent time with the Mayans?

[eschatonic]

So Carl Callerman is the source of this astrology, and he's the one who claims to have spent time with the Mayans?


Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar

by Carl Johan Calleman Ph.D.

This is the source Book for Ian Xel Lungold's presentations.
We Highly Recommend that you consider purchasing it. The material covered in this book explores recent scientific discoveries of the Mayan Calendar


ian lungold is the one who went to the mayan elders

[psygnisfive]

ian lungold is the one who went to the mayan elders

Ok. Well I'd love to read more about this. I'll look into the book.

Reading Calleman's site, I think it's disingenuous to say that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. The current baktun ends, but that's not the end of the calendar, just the start of the 13th baktun. :\

[WakingSleep]

Ok. Well I'd love to read more about this. I'll look into the book.

Reading Calleman's site, I think it's disingenuous to say that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. The current baktun ends, but that's not the end of the calendar, just the start of the 13th baktun. :\

Psygnisfive, you may also want to check out John Major Jenkins' work, his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 in particular. He and Calleman clash on a few theories, but both have amazing minds. Jenkins has a lot of insight into the galactic alignment that takes place on the December Solstice in 2012 and why they used this date as the end of their Great Cycle, as well as what it means for the Citizens of Cycle Endings (us).

http://alignment2012.com/

[psygnisfive]

Psygnisfive, you may also want to check out John Major Jenkins' work, his book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 in particular. He and Calleman clash on a few theories, but both have amazing minds. Jenkins has a lot of insight into the galactic alignment that takes place on the December Solstice in 2012 and why they used this date as the end of their Great Cycle, as well as what it means for the Citizens of Cycle Endings (us).

http://alignment2012.com/

I would really like to see some professional archaeological commentary on this stuff tho. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that people who devote their entire lives to understanding a civilization is going to ignore something that was supposedly so fundamental to the civilization. The notion that they threw it out because it was "astrology" and who cares about that is simply nonsense. Clearly the archaeologists don't disregard what they don't believe in, otherwise we wouldn't know about the whole Mayan religion, their rituals, etc. So I find it hard to believe that the archaeologists would have missed this. I might look into that stella that was found, too. Anyone have links to information on it?

[max_freakout]

Cephalopods also don't seem to use language despite being quite intelligent. A shame, really, because it'd be interesting to see what non-human language looks like. :(

how would a human recognize non-human language as being language?


this is what 'Solaris' is about

[WakingSleep]

I would really like to see some professional archaeological commentary on this stuff tho. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that people who devote their entire lives to understanding a civilization is going to ignore something that was supposedly so fundamental to the civilization. The notion that they threw it out because it was "astrology" and who cares about that is simply nonsense. Clearly the archaeologists don't disregard what they don't believe in, otherwise we wouldn't know about the whole Mayan religion, their rituals, etc. So I find it hard to believe that the archaeologists would have missed this. I might look into that stella that was found, too. Anyone have links to information on it?

Calleman and Jenkins are two of the most prominent professional researchers on the subject, so I'm not sure what you are looking for here. If you want a more mainstream approach, I'm sure your local library has a myriad of sources. Also, John Major Jenkins has quite a lot to say about the stellas. You can also reference the bibliography to his book... I'm certain you'll find something interesting there.

[psygnisfive]

how would a human recognize non-human language as being language?


this is what 'Solaris' is about

Well, no, Solaris is about Lem's idea that we're arrogant enough to believe that all intelligence in the universe will be like us. I take issue with Lem's ideas, but that's besides the point.

Recognizing language as language, however, is indeed potentially tricky. But there are a fair number of cues to language use, such as specific, highly detailed communications, that dolphins don't seem to be engaged it. Maybe they're talking and just don't do so in a way we can detect, but as far as anyone can tell they're not. And when we try to teach them even the rudiments of a human language it fails. They just don't seem to have the ability to understand language.

[psygnisfive]

Calleman and Jenkins are two of the most prominent professional researchers on the subject, so I'm not sure what you are looking for here.

I'm looking for professionals. I'd like to see these guys publish in a peer reviewed journal, or give a talk at a major university. Something. But as far as I can tell these two are just Joe Schmoes who have no experience with actual Mayanology. Calleman isn't even an trained archaeologist.

If you want a more mainstream approach, I'm sure your local library has a myriad of sources. Also, John Major Jenkins has quite a lot to say about the stellas. You can also reference the bibliography to his book... I'm certain you'll find something interesting there.

I'm just incredibly wary of people claiming to be "experts" and "professionals" when they're most known for attempting to spread Newage ideology. I'm all for interesting ideas, and the calendrics discussed here are quite interesting, but it's a bit shady when the first thing you do is publicize it to the laymen rather than the to the ones who'll pay it the most scrutiny. I think it's fascinating stuff, but it's still a fishy approach to these things.

There's a general rule of thumb: If the first person being told of new research works for a news outlet not a peer reviewed journal, the person is probably more interested in glory than spreading knowledge, and the research is probably bullshit.

This tends to be the case, in my experience, and while the math for the calendar is transparent, the situation still smacks of fame seeking.

[WakingSleep]

I'm looking for professionals. I'd like to see these guys publish in a peer reviewed journal, or give a talk at a major university. Something. But as far as I can tell these two are just Joe Schmoes who have no experience with actual Mayanology. Calleman isn't even an trained archaeologist.
And you came to this conclusion in what... the span of 24 hours? Clearly, you didn't read a thing about John Major Jenkins and his background, or doesn't teaching classes at Naropa University, The Esalen Institute, The Institute of Maya Studies in Miami (to name a few) measure up to your standards? Perhaps you should do a little background research on the people you bash before bashing them. It's good to have a solid BS detector, but it doesn't do you any good when it's going off constantly, all the time.

And that's the last thing I have to say about it... besides, this thread is about The Original Ideas of Terence McKenna. Perhaps we can get back on topic.

[psygnisfive]

And you came to this conclusion in what... the span of 24 hours? Clearly, you didn't read a thing about John Major Jenkins and his background, or doesn't teaching classes at Naropa University, The Esalen Institute, The Institute of Maya Studies in Miami (to name a few) measure up to your standards? Perhaps you should do a little background research on the people you bash before bashing them. It's good to have a solid BS detector, but it doesn't do you any good when it's going off constantly, all the time.

And that's the last thing I have to say about it... besides, this thread is about The Original Ideas of Terence McKenna. Perhaps we can get back on topic.

JMJ I will retract my label of Joe Schmoe, as I don't know much about him. But Lungold and Calleman are clearly not professionals.

Yes, agree about moving back on topic.

I have a question for those familiar with McKenna's ideas:

What, precisely, is McKennan "Novelty"?

[max_freakout]

Mckenna developed original ideas, building on the work of Mircea Eliade, about the relationship between shamanism and entheogenic plants

[Szifers]

Mckenna developed original ideas, building on the work of Mircea Eliade, about the relationship between shamanism and entheogenic plants

Yeah, he said that shamans do their healing by choosing patients that will get well. That's quite original.

[psygnisfive]

Do shamans send the rest of the patients to real doctors who will /make/ them well? ;)

[max_freakout]

Yeah, he said that shamans do their healing by choosing patients that will get well. That's quite original.

absolutely, saying that entheogens allow the shaman to see into the future

which is exactly what Hoffman is saying with his theory of entheogen-determinism

[max_freakout]

Do shamans send the rest of the patients to real doctors who will /make/ them well? ;)

the shaman treats the patients who do become well

[psygnisfive]

the shaman treats the patients who do become well

What, and everyone who sees medical doctors remains ill?

[Ostritt]

In The Invisible Landscape there is a quote by Eliade I think that goes something like "shamans understand the mechanism of illness" I take that to mean they understand the relationship between mind and body, or the patient and their own illness rather than the illness seperated from the patient which is how it seems to be viewed in Western medicine. In fact, that word "patient" is indicative of how we look at illness. It's not personal at all. It's not "you've pissed off the parrot spirit and that's why you're sick" it's "something in your body is malfunctioning, we need to fix it, just be quiet while we get it done." :D

[psygnisfive]

It's not personal at all. It's not "you've pissed off the parrot spirit and that's why you're sick" it's "something in your body is malfunctioning, we need to fix it, just be quiet while we get it done." :D

The first version is effectively identical to the latter. In both cases, the person is being affected by some external issue. The only difference is that one conceptualizes this as a cognizant entity causing illness by willful act and the other conceptualizes this as a simple fact that mechanism in the body has changed in a way that happens to be detrimental to the rest (or some biological entity is producing negative side effects by inhabiting your body). Neither view is exclusive of the other as it's entirely possible that a doctor might say "well, it looks like you've pissed off the chef at the diner you go to and he's poisoning your food. maybe you should go apologize to him or stop eating the food there." which is the exact view as the first example you give. And no doubt the people who often cite the first wouldn't argue with the notion that the reason your leg is hurting after a tree fell on it is because you broke the bone, they'd tell you to bandage it not ask the tree spirit for forgiveness. The question that's most relevant I think is which of those two is the cause of the bodily damage, willful acts of malice by others (human or "spirit"), or events with harmful side effects? I think everyone would agree that atleast SOME health problems are merely events that have harmful side effects.

[Ostritt]

The first version is effectively identical to the latter. In both cases, the person is being affected by some external issue. The only difference is that one conceptualizes this as a cognizant entity causing illness by willful act and the other conceptualizes this as a simple fact that mechanism in the body has changed in a way that happens to be detrimental to the rest (or some biological entity is producing negative side effects by inhabiting your body). Neither view is exclusive of the other as it's entirely possible that a doctor might say "well, it looks like you've pissed off the chef at the diner you go to and he's poisoning your food. maybe you should go apologize to him or stop eating the food there." which is the exact view as the first example you give. And no doubt the people who often cite the first wouldn't argue with the notion that the reason your leg is hurting after a tree fell on it is because you broke the bone, they'd tell you to bandage it not ask the tree spirit for forgiveness. The question that's most relevant I think is which of those two is the cause of the bodily damage, willful acts of malice by others (human or "spirit"), or events with harmful side effects? I think everyone would agree that atleast SOME health problems are merely events that have harmful side effects.

Yea I should have used a better example. I'm talking about someone attacking illness through perception rather than a physical operation / synthesised medication. So basically I mean that by believing strongly enough (in any cure) you will be cured. That's what I take from the Eliade quote.

[max_freakout]

What, and everyone who sees medical doctors remains ill?

i hope not!! :eek::confused:

[Szifers]

What, and everyone who sees medical doctors remains ill?

Yeah, 'cause science is bunk.

[psygnisfive]

Yea I should have used a better example. I'm talking about someone attacking illness through perception rather than a physical operation / synthesised medication. So basically I mean that by believing strongly enough (in any cure) you will be cured. That's what I take from the Eliade quote.

The placebo affect is indeed quite strong. But ultimately even that reduces to some causal relationship between mind states and body states, and thus to mechanism and physical (in an abstract sense) operation. Whether it's mental ability to manipulate hormones, t-cell levels, white blood cell count, etc. or spiritual ability to do whatever, ultimately it's a process of interactions causing some change. :confused:

[Ostritt]

The placebo affect is indeed quite strong. But ultimately even that reduces to some causal relationship between mind states and body states, and thus to mechanism and physical (in an abstract sense) operation. Whether it's mental ability to manipulate hormones, t-cell levels, white blood cell count, etc. or spiritual ability to do whatever, ultimately it's a process of interactions causing some change. :confused:

I don't really distinguish between mental and spiritual processes, I reckon everything is a spiritual process and the bodies (and the relative universe) are just tools (of themselves :eek:)

[psygnisfive]

I don't really distinguish between mental and spiritual processes, I reckon everything is a spiritual process and the bodies (and the relative universe) are just tools (of themselves :eek:)

Sure, however you want to define it, but ultimately your spirit is extending its wriggling little spirit tentacles and poking your meatspace body in just the right way to make you not-sick. However that occurs literally, whether it's cognitive information flow giving rise to chemical signals that alter body chemistry, or aetheric machinations we don't yet understand, it's something modifying the mechanisms of the body. You can't have a sick body without your body being broken in some physical sense. It's just not possible.

[Ostritt]

Yea I don't disagree with that. I think if we don't destroy ourselves we will eventually understand very well how it all works. Or, maybe understanding it will help us not to destroy ourselves...

[psygnisfive]

Yea I don't disagree with that. I think if we don't destroy ourselves we will eventually understand very well how it all works. Or, maybe understanding it will help us not to destroy ourselves...

Well if we're going down THAT tangent...

Upload your cognitive processes to a distributed computer network that permeates the universe and you've got rid of basically every existential risk imaginable. ;)

[Ostritt]

Yea I was thinking of that in the synchronisity thread, a friend was telling me about a scientist who says we may be doing that quite soon, in the next 30 years or so. Do you know who it is? I'd be up for it, as long as I could manifest myself as any form and watch Lost.

[psygnisfive]

Yea I was thinking of that in the synchronisity thread, a friend was telling me about a scientist who says we may be doing that quite soon, in the next 30 years or so. Do you know who it is? I'd be up for it, as long as I could manifest myself as any form and watch Lost.

I can tell you of a number of different people who argue for this as a likelihood. Kurzweil (the most well known) and Vinge (the guy who originated the idea).

There's this joke, actually. An actual convo but still funny. It goes something like this:

Someone was talking to Vinge, asking him what he thought of the dispute between the slow, progressive view of the Singularity espoused by some, and the rapid and sudden just-a-few-years Singularity of Kurzweil. Vinge retorts that compared to him [Vinge], Kurzweil was a slow, progressive Singularitarian!

lol.

I'm not sure if we'll hit Singularity by 2035 or not, but I don't think it's impossible. As far as we know, mind is the result of neurons, so put those neurons in a virtual environment instead of a physical one and you still have mind. But with one benefit: Computers and their programs are easy to modify, so intelligence can enhance itself, resulting in positive feedback, resulting in Singularity. So really it's just a matter of figuring out how to program simulations of neurons (and maybe basal ganglia??) and then uploading someone into a computer. This I think is readily possible by 2035, if not sooner.

This precludes that we have parts of our minds that are like Descartes's soul.

[Brandon]

Everything is in constant creation. Each moment is created out of the last. You did not create what created you. All your ideas are influenced by a life of experience brought by the world around you.

Mckenna is still special in my mind.

[Ostritt]

Everything is in constant creation. Each moment is created out of the last. You did not create what created you. All your ideas are influenced by a life of experience brought by the world around you.

Mckenna is still special in my mind.

Unless you're aware of the process. It doesn't just work one way, our ideas feed back into the world and so on. We are the world around us as much as anything else :rolleyes:

[Szifers]

As far as we know, mind is the result of neurons, so put those neurons in a virtual environment instead of a physical one and you still have mind. But with one benefit: Computers and their programs are easy to modify, so intelligence can enhance itself, resulting in positive feedback, resulting in Singularity.

There's a logical gap in that argument. Programs are easy to modify, if they are programs designed by humans. And they are not always easy to "enhance" even then. Supposing that we can somehow transfer the human brain onto a programmable environment, it doesn't follow at all that we will understand it enough to meaningfully modify or enhance it. The program wasn't designed by us.

[psygnisfive]

There's a logical gap in that argument. Programs are easy to modify, if they are programs designed by humans. And they are not always easy to "enhance" even then. Supposing that we can somehow transfer the human brain onto a programmable environment, it doesn't follow at all that we will understand it enough to meaningfully modify or enhance it. The program wasn't designed by us.

Yes, yes, yes, ofcourse. But what I meant was that modifying a program is considerably easier than modifying the brain, in that IF you know what you need to do, it's a matter of punching the right keys, as opposed to going in and manipulating physical structure and chemical settings. Yes, I agree that just because we can recreate brain structures perfectly doesn't mean we understand how they give rise to what they give rise to. Completely agree. Hope, my friend, hope! :)