Yeah movies are never as good as the novels. I wish i'd never even freaking seen the movie DUNE! It ruined my amazing memories of the book

Originally posted by bobwilson
Interesting analysis. Have you ever smoked dmt? Reason i ask is because often people don't understand terence until they're been "there". He wasn't trying to create a belief system- he actually hoped people would question what he said and think for themselves without sticking to any belief system, even commenting that a mckenna-cult would be the dumbest thing anyone could ever do after listening to him.

And yet, what you have just demonstrated, whether McKenna willed it or not, is the hall-mark of a belief system...to understand him I should experience 'X'...if I don't understand him therefore I could not have experienced 'X'. That in, and of itself, is the foundation of every single belief system.

Originally posted by bobwilson
I love both pkd and terence and i just don't feel the urge to ever really compare them, but there is some remarkable similarities in how the 'mystery' permeated into both of their lives in baffling ways.

What 'mystery'? Explain.

Your article drew together observations made by PKD with observations McKenna made of PKD, whether you chose to compare or not, you brought together that information for the purposes of comparison. For me there is no comparison. McKenna had experiences with various substances, and through those experiences he chose to create a hypothesis of 'reality'. PKD on the other hand merely recorded, or reported his perceptions from a personal perspective, defining them as fiction, or rather allowing fiction to define them, thus giving the power of perception and interpretation to the reader. As I said prior, I value McKenna's work, I just do not accept his 'reality'. Just as I do not accept R Gordon Wasson's. In terms of '___', I prefer the insight of Shulgin, and more recently, Strassman. McKenna's experience, and subsequent promotion of that method as a direct source of 'spiritual experience' is highly limited because it does not take into account of the individual psyche and the work that must go into approaching such an experience. In short, McKenna merely sought to validate recreational use of such substances, and therefore belittled the usefulness of that pathway, and to an extent misled, his readership. Though I am not a huge fan of much of RAW's work, he hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the individual mind as a measuring device that should be constantly reworked and recalibrated. Like the Delphic Oracle, we should seek to know ourselves, intricately, because only then can we expect to understand what mysteries lie beyond 'self'. '___' either naturally induced internally, or externally introduced, only answers questions that we are capable of asking.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
McKenna had experiences with various substances, and through those experiences he chose to create a hypothesis of 'reality'. PKD on the other hand merely recorded, or reported his perceptions from a personal perspective, defining them as fiction, or rather allowing fiction to define them, thus giving the power of perception and interpretation to the reader.

Have you even looked at Phils exegesis. Because it is filled with reams and reams of theorizing. There is nothing wrong with it IMO, so long as they don't get too attached to their theories or forget not to take themselves too seriously.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
As I said prior, I value McKenna's work, I just do not accept his 'reality'.

Neither do I.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout Just as I do not accept R Gordon Wasson's. In terms of '___', I prefer the insight of Shulgin, and more recently, Strassman. McKenna's experience, and subsequent promotion of that method as a direct source of 'spiritual experience' is highly limited because it does not take into account of the individual psyche and the work that must go into approaching such an experience. In short, McKenna merely sought to validate recreational use of such substances, and therefore belittled the usefulness of that pathway, and to an extent misled, his readership.

Mckenna certianly riffed about how serious psychedelics and shamanism is and how there is risks involved, and in no way "merely sought to validate recreational use of such substances" IMO

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout Like the Delphic Oracle, we should seek to know ourselves, intricately, because only then can we expect to understand what mysteries lie beyond 'self'. '___' either naturally induced internally, or externally introduced, only answers questions that we are capable of asking.

agreed

have read MCkenna and all that genre..

The idngenous cultures were right all along.They lived in harmony with nature and each other.. Humankind overthinks almost everything it does . Rarely do they stop in their seeking to find that well of light within themselves.

Originally posted by bobwilson
Please don't put words in my mouth, i never said this. I said that people TEND to not understand him unless they've done dmt (or had a pschedelic experience). I never said that to understand him you HAVE to have experienced X, or that if you don't understand him then you could not have experience X. I'm speaking generally here, and i think many would agree that after a psychedelic experience one is more likely to resonate with psychedelic minds like mckenna, wilson, ect. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief system. The fact that you even bring that up is just weird.

Why is it 'weird'? I responded initially by saying that McKenna had constructed a 'belief system', you then demonstrated precisely what I meant by such a 'belief system'. I didn't put any words in your mouth, I simply jumped upon the example that you had provided. Perfectly within context. Nothing weird in that. Your hyper-sensitivity though is another matter entirely...

Originally posted by bobwilson
Yes, some people take mckenna WAY too seriously and swallow everything he says hook line and sinker. I'm not one of those people, sorry. No need to save me from my non-existent mckenna religion

No need to apologise. And I am not in the 'saving' business, just here for intelligent conversation, when I can find it. As I clearly stated before, my problems is with McKenna's lack of awareness of the subjectivity of his own experience. I have no idea of your experience, subjective or otherwise, so why assume a personal agenda on my part?

Originally posted by bobwilson
Have you even looked at Phils exegesis. Because it is filled with reams and reams of theorizing. There is nothing wrong with it IMO, so long as they don't get too attached to their theories or forget not to take themselves too seriously.

But by nature, as an 'exegesis' it is personal and relational to himself, thereby accepting of it's subjectivity. As you yourself have stated, every philosopher keeps a journal, but few share that journal with others, unless they are comfortable allowing others to look that deeply into that 'self'. I have my own, I won't let anyone read it, and much like PKD it theorises on all matters influential to who I am and how I developed myself, and like RAW serves as a calibrator to my own perception of reality. PKD's beauty lay in his willingness to lay himself open to scrutiny, to allow others to learn from him...that is also part of him vulnerability and fragility.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Mckenna certianly riffed about how serious psychedelics and shamanism is and how there is risks involved, and in no way "merely sought to validate recreational use of such substances" IMO

Perhaps he wasn't necessarily aware of what he was doing when his did that, but that was the consequence, I certainly wouldn't class him in the same league as Leary in that respect, but his own inability to realise that his experiences were subjective leaves his work fundamentally flawed.

Pkd is my favourite writer. Love his work.
Have also tried all kinds of psychedelics, learned alot, mostly about love and subjective reality.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by bobwilson
Have you even looked at Phils exegesis. Because it is filled with reams and reams of theorizing. There is nothing wrong with it IMO, so long as they don't get too attached to their theories or forget not to take themselves too seriously.

But by nature, as an 'exegesis' it is personal and relational to himself, thereby accepting of it's subjectivity. As you yourself have stated, every philosopher keeps a journal, but few share that journal with others, unless they are comfortable allowing others to look that deeply into that 'self'. I have my own, I won't let anyone read it, and much like PKD it theorises on all matters influential to who I am and how I developed myself, and like RAW serves as a calibrator to my own perception of reality. PKD's beauty lay in his willingness to lay himself open to scrutiny, to allow others to learn from him...that is also part of him vulnerability and fragility.

You must love J.D. Salinger then.

PKD's beauty lay in his willingness to lay himself open to scrutiny, to allow others to learn from him...that is also part of him vulnerability and fragility.

This is one of the things that I love about Dick as well. Bobwilson I assume your name refers to Robert Anton Wilson? He's another author that made an impact on me at a younger age, particularly his book (I forget which one of the series) Cosmic Trigger, which was where I was first introduced to PKD.