|
Terence Mckenna ftw (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
I know I can't take Wikipedia as a reliable summary of anyone's thoughts... but:
| quote: | | Another factor that McKenna talked about was the mushroom's potency to promote linguistic thinking. This would have promoted vocalisation, which in turn would have acted in cleansing the brain (based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate the brain. |
This is really unlikely, given what we already know about language evolution.
| quote: | Originally posted by AnotherWay83
some of his ideas are definitely out there, but IMHO the guy was just brilliant. here's a few more (they're all short clips, 3 - 8 mins each) that you might like: |
I can sympathise with the guy, and his intentions are definitely good, having his heart in the right place. This is awesome. However, and it pains me to say this, the content of those videos left me unsatisfied. For example:
| quote: | Do not believe
Ideology has poisoned this planet. Ideology is bankrupt. It's a skin game. It's a shell game. It's only for marks. It is beneath your dignity as a body to get mixed up in ideology. After all, where is it writ large that talking monkeys should understand the nature of being anyway? Belief is an incredible cop-out on intellectual truth-seeking because belief precludes believing in its opposite. So this is a self-limitation. You become your own cop. The ideologies of the 20th century are so shoddy and hobbled-together, or toxic to human values, that they're not worth believing in anyway. So, deconditioning ourselves from belief: some people call it cynicism. I call it good sense! I'm not a cynical person, but I know from Shinola, and I don't expect people who don't to get a lot of respect from the rest of us. What does it mean if you're an optimist and you can't proclaim the difference between boot polish and excreta? It's ridiculous. Don't believe. |
Maybe he defined his terms before the recorded bit, but that section is useless without a proper definition of what ideology is (just equating it with adjectives isn't really any kind of advance). Saying "ideology is bad" is no more profound than saying "ideology is good".
He then goes on to make a very dubious argument: "Belief is an incredible cop-out on intellectual truth-seeking because belief precludes believing in its opposite". No, it doesn't preclude believing in its opposite. As a scientist, I often need to reframe the same problem over and over again, testing different beliefs until I find one that better fits the data. And even then, the resulting belief does not preclude me from changing my mind. Likewise, I believe that capitalism is pretty much the only viable option available to us right now. Does this mean I couldn't think of something else? Of course I can - it just so happens that I haven't found a better alternative.
Cynicism does not equate scepticism, which is what he's arguing for. As a philosophical movement, there was a good deal of scepticism among the first cynics, but that's not even what the words mean nowadays. More often than not being a contrarian without a good reason (and he fails to give one) is just as harmful to society as a "follower", as he goes on to argue afterwards.
These are the only propositions I could extract from that paragraph, and I may have been a tad bit unfair because it's not in a larger context. But, whereas it is awesome that you find some interest on someone who challenges the status quo - I urge you to challenge him as well. Go beyond what he says and equip yourself with more mental tools, and don't take a "no" (or a "bad") for an answer. "Why (not)?" should follow most propositions until there's no reasonable doubt. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I know I can't take Wikipedia as a reliable summary of anyone's thoughts... but:
This is really unlikely, given what we already know about language evolution.
I can sympathise with the guy, and his intentions are definitely good, having his heart in the right place. This is awesome. However, and it pains me to say this, the content of those videos left me unsatisfied. For example:
Maybe he defined his terms before the recorded bit, but that section is useless without a proper definition of what ideology is (just equating it with adjectives isn't really any kind of advance). Saying "ideology is bad" is no more profound than saying "ideology is good".
He then goes on to make a very dubious argument: "Belief is an incredible cop-out on intellectual truth-seeking because belief precludes believing in its opposite". No, it doesn't preclude believing in its opposite. As a scientist, I often need to reframe the same problem over and over again, testing different beliefs until I find one that better fits the data. And even then, the resulting belief does not preclude me from changing my mind. Likewise, I believe that capitalism is pretty much the only viable option available to us right now. Does this mean I couldn't think of something else? Of course I can - it just so happens that I haven't found a better alternative.
Cynicism does not equate scepticism, which is what he's arguing for. As a philosophical movement, there was a good deal of scepticism among the first cynics, but that's not even what the words mean nowadays. More often than not being a contrarian without a good reason (and he fails to give one) is just as harmful to society as a "follower", as he goes on to argue afterwards.
These are the only propositions I could extract from that paragraph, and I may have been a tad bit unfair because it's not in a larger context. But, whereas it is awesome that you find some interest on someone who challenges the status quo - I urge you to challenge him as well. Go beyond what he says and equip yourself with more mental tools, and don't take a "no" (or a "bad") for an answer. "Why (not)?" should follow most propositions until there's no reasonable doubt. |
"So, deconditioning ourselves from belief: some people call it cynicism. I call it good sense!"
he is talking about assumption that everyone makes: people assume that their believe, and their beliefs, are truth. we need to stop believing in fabricated information that fits a certain system of power, and find the only true power that there is: objective truth.
he is not saying ideology is bad. he is saying HUMAN ideology is bad. humanity is not yet, or anywhere close to having developing proper ideology.
the only ideology that there is in the universe, is the ideology of truth. the only idea, is the one that of truth, the only ideal, is the one of perfection.
math is ideology. science is ideology. religion is ideology. etc. etc.
when humanity attaches the goals of humanity for the development of math, science and religion, you can start to see, where everything humanity does, loses objectivity.
you should never follow anyone's footsteps when everyone needs to make their own. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
he is not saying ideology is bad. he is saying HUMAN ideology is bad. |
Oh, right, how could I forget that? :p |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Oh, right, how could I forget that? :p |
you didnt actually !! :)
Mckenna implied 'human ideology' is bad when he said ideology is bad.
you implied Ideology is good, which it is, if properly defined.
(which you also mentioned i think, that something must first be defined properly, then analyzed)
so you, me, and Mckenna are on the same side here: truth.
:disbelief :disbelief :disbelief |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
This is really unlikely, given what we already know about language evolution. |
What do we know about language evolution that makes this so unlikely? |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
What do we know about language evolution that makes this so unlikely? |
there is no such thing as language evolution.
the only evolution that needs to take place, is the evolution of understanding of language.
language = perfect.
humans = error, corrupt, polluted, biased and ignorant.
therefore, a human will always be illiterate unless he learns to evolve his understanding of language, and the infinite depth that it has. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
there is no such thing as language evolution.
the only evolution that needs to take place, is the evolution of understanding of language.
language = perfect.
humans = error, corrupt, polluted, biased and ignorant.
therefore, a human will always be illiterate unless he learns to evolve his understanding of language, and the infinite depth that it has. |
I love how you dither semantic understanding by conflating it with a completely unrealistic ideal.
You just might reach the high-water mark left in Mr. Ashley's wake, after all. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| Can somebody ban this Trinity already? He posts nothing but word salad and it doesn't even have the virtue of being amusing. |
|
|
| Sphere City |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
there is no such thing as language evolution.
the only evolution that needs to take place, is the evolution of understanding of language.
language = perfect.
humans = error, corrupt, polluted, biased and ignorant.
therefore, a human will always be illiterate unless he learns to evolve his understanding of language, and the infinite depth that it has. |
ur a waste of space. u vegetable |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Can somebody ban this Trinity already? He posts nothing but word salad and it doesn't even have the virtue of being amusing. |
I'm beginning to believe that he should be banned, not for our sakes, but for his own. He seems a little too crazy for this place and I'm concerned that he'll only escalate the conflict he's already fostered to a point well beyond his strained ability to cope. He's already had one epic, rage-fueled meltdown and I'm fairly certain more of the same is on the way. I seriously do not think this is the safest place for him. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I love how you dither semantic understanding by conflating it with a completely unrealistic ideal.
You just might reach the high-water mark left in Mr. Ashley's wake, after all. |
the more you rely on mind energy to shape matter, the more the mind can alter matter.
the more you rely on material to shape the mind, the less energy-matter levels you will acknowledge exist. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I'm beginning to believe that he should be banned, not for our sakes, but for his own. He seems a little too crazy for this place and I'm concerned that he'll only escalate the conflict he's already fostered to a point well beyond his strained ability to cope. He's already had one epic, rage-fueled meltdown and I'm fairly certain more of the same is on the way. I seriously do not think this is the safest place for him. |
what meltdown?
you seem to misplace the emotions i leave in words.
i leave no emotion in the words i write, except the emotions you feel about my words.
i have no feelings about words.
my feelings are about the spectrum of nothing.
again, crazy is how my words make YOU FEEL. it is not i that is crazy, it is the way YOU feel about my words.
my words, DRIVE. YOU. CRAZY. therefore, it is you that acknowledges that insanity does exist, and you are the source of the acknowledgement of the feeling of crazy. you are the source. my words are my words. the way you feel about them, those feelings are yours, and yours alone. |
|
|
|
|
