tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post8009058435329451616..comments2023-06-30T08:49:35.107-07:00Comments on Zeuzzz: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human EvolutionZeuzzzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-79885732788759439092015-01-06T13:58:18.032-08:002015-01-06T13:58:18.032-08:00I would dearly love to see the before and after fa...I would dearly love to see the before and after face of people like Brian Akers if they did just one Ayahuasca ceremony ;-)IAMPhilip777https://www.blogger.com/profile/17509664823209779248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-33595121368659206272014-12-25T14:15:25.144-08:002014-12-25T14:15:25.144-08:00enjoyed reading this. it's time to smoke some ...enjoyed reading this. it's time to smoke some tobacco here.<br />remember that all phenomena are impermanent and merely projections of your mindAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05882783712155303805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-36285716978175031502014-05-23T10:05:51.469-07:002014-05-23T10:05:51.469-07:00Poor fanatics. They get so stressed out.
Pitiful...Poor fanatics. They get so stressed out. <br /><br />Pitiful, pathological liars - used to putting it over. When it doesn't work out OMG, psychodrama. Some get so used to nobody seeing thru them - they start to think deception is some Superpower they have - and nobody could ever see through them. And that starts chipping away at fragile timbers of their insecure ego, as it feeds on such flattering self-deceit.<br /><br />Soon Artful Liar's expectations are conditioned, like one of Pavlov's dogs. They go from thinking they're so good at lying, they start kidding themselves they're entitled to deceive, like a divinely granted right or some truth they hold self-evident. And it puts them at risk for a nervous breakdown if/when it all fails. It becomes beyond comprehension for the "Entitled-To-Be-Believed" that someone might call bullshit on their con - even as a possibility. <br /><br />So when that happens (it does) - its nervous breakdown time, they snap like dry twigs. Oh well that's fanaticism for you. Seen one brand you seen 'em all.<br /><br />That sums up the McKenna's Witnesses dilemma. With their "inspiration" a pack of lies, as we easily find and verify - except followers afraid to even look (lest the thread by which their sanity hangs snap). They've backed the wrong horse, and that's tough luck for fanatics. They put ALL their eggs in a basket that don't float, and can't (sinks like a rock) - eagerly, with greatest of ease. But getting their eggs back out, isn't so easy.<br /><br />That's why they call that fanatic bs 'thought programming.' And there's no cure for the mental anguish and distress, rage and fear - cognitive dissonance inflicted. When TM bait is taken, swallowed - a nasty barbed hook is set. Those reeled in, all up into it - their precarious mental world around it - are left unable to ever face reality again. Permanent loss of mind, sanity etc.<br /><br />Truth becomes too upsetting for those who've embraced ego-enticing lies. One can only pity those struggling in such webs, furiously, foaming at the mouth.<br /><br />Pseudoscience's 'experts' crave credibility science has achieved and commands - and that's the 'logic' (i.e. Motive) of their whole 'theorizing' pretense: "To Infiltrate - imitate." As any wolf gussied up in sheepskin, going "bahaha" - to try and get into the herd. <br /><br />And then Little Red Riding Hood said: "My Grandma, what a clever strategy you have!" ("Oh, the better to pick out the most choice targets, right up close at point blank range, my dear").<br /><br />Fanatic 'schmeorists' are just fine when they can get whoever to believe them. They only fly into fanatic rage when unmasked as frauds. With their sanity staked on deceit, what else can poor fanatics, sick sad nutcases, do but go nuts when it doesn't work out? <br /><br />Of course, fanatics and liars can pound their little gripes & grievances with the grapes right up their 'stupid fox' patootie. They picked their Koolaid, drank it by their own choice - and that's not enough, now they gotta try and get whoever else to drink with them? <br /><br />They made their bed, now they gotta LIE in it (get it? ;-)<br /><br />Cool new character in the puppet show Greg. Enraged by those grapes, left shaking fist at the science so spitefully envied, its credibility beyond Fox's reach. How dare anything real, like truth, or knowledge and understanding itself - defy the wishes of liars and cons? The audacity how dare truth be - true? Especially when fanatics' sanity depends on duplicity, their little "pull my finger" schmeories (jokes) fallen for? <br /><br />Good for you Greg. I mean, "Mauricio." Just to keep it in character for ya (don't I know there's a Puppet Show on?)<br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-44940322867266758572014-04-06T22:25:06.854-07:002014-04-06T22:25:06.854-07:00Fundamental arrogance is the trade mark of current...Fundamental arrogance is the trade mark of current day academics and "licensed"scientists. In what have become a near bureaucratic discipline, the licensing of knowledge (ei, degree titles, specializations,etc) has flattened the ground, granting the right for inquiry, or taking it away at leisure .... you can today be taken to jail to do what Leonardo Davinci and many others did on their time: exercising curiosity and risking their own skin motivated solely by their thirst for understanding the world they live in. Not anymore, today you need a license to think and to produce theory and you'll be ostracized if you do this without an ""appropriate license"" this is what Mr. Akers is trying here..saying :this is bullshit because we (licensed) scientist say so ....<br /><br /><br />Unfortunately for him, now we know that the ice all our very advanced "science"stands on is VERY thin and for all the neat advances is appears to make the truth is it fails to explain all of the most fundamental questions ( never found or imaginary "missing link"??) and solve the most fundamental problems (arthritis has no cure ???) , and the list is endless ...... as Paul Feyerabend ( and I recommend to anyone interested in science and the philosophy of science read his books) said in his book "Against method" : " The scientific method as is accepted today, has built in the most fundamental flaw that hinders its own advancement: all new theory, has to comply or be the continuation of previously established or accepted theories, this is a scheme that favors the old theories over the more interesting and probably correct theories, as it forbids itself (science) to even explore them"...the condescending tone emanating from Mr Akers speaks for itself and it is an example of the type of crude bureaucratic middle man that academics and licensed scientist have allowed themselves to become....sad. Mauriciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530417036015390882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-43734631973370437852014-03-31T09:47:56.054-07:002014-03-31T09:47:56.054-07:00Poor doggie, here - throw you another bone.
Thi...Poor doggie, here - throw you another bone. <br /><br />This just in - latest in stoned apes news. Fresh raw material for your "never-ceasing amazement and odd entertainment" story line (as per latest revision)? Interesting trail this 'theory' is cutting thru the world of science and scholarship. Stoned apes finally finding its way? Its dreams of getting attention, from someone, anyone - finally coming true?:<br /><br />http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-new-york-knicks-phil-jackson-and-the-stoned-ape-theory/<br /><br />Can you enhance or boost your signal? Last transmission, deciphered no signal just noise. Other than date Jan 23 2014 screen showed only garbled nonsense, incoherent - computer glitch? <br /><br /><br /><br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-54547767048151022702014-01-23T10:32:43.368-08:002014-01-23T10:32:43.368-08:00lol you never cease to amaze me with your oddly en...lol you never cease to amaze me with your oddly entertaining replies Brian ... now where was that long article you wrote elsewhere on this theory originally posted? Some type of skeptic blog and/or environment, a link would be great. If you don't want to link to it I can simply go through the old thread at JREF and find it, I think that has a lot to do with why you spend so much time doing what you do ...<br /><br />All the best.Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-43992588966689218092014-01-21T11:00:31.039-08:002014-01-21T11:00:31.039-08:00Awwww - what's the matter now, Greg? Somethin...Awwww - what's the matter now, Greg? Something you're (sniff) unhappy about? Woe is me, have I failed to satisfy you in some way? Something I said or didn't say - fails to meet some need of yours? Like some 'issues' you have, requiring address?<br /><br />But by jove , I think you hit on something there (oops?) - you got 'main issues' all right. A glaring one is that you're entitled to satisfaction - like a brat wants his candy bar, and had better get it. What will you demand next, a shrubbery? <br /><br />Another issue (less hopeful) might be - whether you can even be helped. <br /><br />Usually, whoever whines (to me?) about someone else (moi?) supposedly whining - well, strikes a mildly amusing note of irony in my ear. Kind of rich. Bravo for life's little treasures. Well sounds like quite a crisis. For you. <br /><br />Idea: Call one of your sockpuppet characters. Maybe they'll throw you a Pity Party. Help stage a tear-stained daytime drama, sympathize with you. And pacify, 'there, there' you - all about that terrible guy not addressing your main issues for you. How dare he? I mean, what an injustice. And oh that such should befall poor, poor you. <br /><br />So cheer up. I'm sure your theater company players can make you feel better. Commiserate, shed a few of your tears with you - one hand to wash the other with them, puppeteer-style. Might make you feel better.<br /><br />But I wouldn't bet on it.Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-32365016803136273652014-01-21T09:38:43.911-08:002014-01-21T09:38:43.911-08:00LOL, you're hilarious. I didn't write the ...LOL, you're hilarious. I didn't write the Brian Fakers comment, I did write the other one from my other google account, as I simply happened to be signed into that one at the time. Quit your whining and address the main issues as you see them.Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-53886139439164464662014-01-20T04:25:04.472-08:002014-01-20T04:25:04.472-08:00Greg (inclusive of your several names ...) - its n...Greg (inclusive of your several names ...) - its not just the never-ending story. Its the way you try telling it. All subtext, loving attention to detail. And such subtlety. <br /><br />Why, even a slick serpent in some mythological garden could only envy your talent for guile .... NOT. Just kidding. As I recall the serpent actually beguiled someone successfully - no pratfalls or unwitting comedy (as here).<br /><br />Well then let's see, how've you got your 'little story' rigged between the lines now? Ah, by Jove (get it?). Clear enough - you've staged it all so well, so carefully. <br /><br />First, we're to understand, indubitably - your 'Fakers' alias is a misnomer of sorts, because - that's no Faker (so, there's no Freudian slippage in your alias thus named - no matter how obvious or telling). <br /><br />Yeah, your 'Faker' alias - is really really is a different person from you - as 'zeuzzz' not Greg (just to keep your dramatis personae clear for you). Right? I mean, you're not going to deny that are you??<br /><br />Second, your 'zeuzzz' characterization is alll curious (ever the inquiring mind) - to know where your other costume character is located. And, how he came to the attention of sockpuppet #1<br /><br />On reflection, brings to mind a quote from good ol' Mr. Spock (STAR TREK): "Fascinating." <br /><br />Although on clinical impression - your psychotheatrics seem less like scifi, more like a soap opera ('daytime drama'). ALL MY SOCKPUPPETS? <br /><br />Or if a film, maybe THREE FACES OF GREG? <br /><br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-35666908068705273652014-01-18T13:18:44.613-08:002014-01-18T13:18:44.613-08:00How did you find the page Brian Fakers, out of int...How did you find the page Brian Fakers, out of interest? Was it my posts at the shroomery, a simple google search, or otherwise? Always nice to know where traffic comes from. Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-5527111447871073752014-01-16T03:01:20.583-08:002014-01-16T03:01:20.583-08:00Good one Greg (and sockpuppets) Good one Greg (and sockpuppets) Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-16138091163774388712014-01-15T16:58:00.422-08:002014-01-15T16:58:00.422-08:00Totally agree Mr Fakers, I've not even read th...Totally agree Mr Fakers, I've not even read the most recent ones. I'm sure they are very well worded, have gorgeous grammar, perfect punctuation, display a voluminous vocabulary, and generally miss the point completely.Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-57613181113218731382014-01-05T13:04:08.388-08:002014-01-05T13:04:08.388-08:00Another utterly vexed cultist (You'rrre not a ...Another utterly vexed cultist (You'rrre not a 'people person,' are you?) <br /><br />(sigh) the TM cult. Such an effort. It tries sooo hard to conceal its essential fanaticism - by making 'intellectual' sounds, pretending its some 'theory' or 'idea.' <br /><br />When its all out of aces TMism shows its hand. Now, plays its last card - infantile tantrum, lashing out, desperately trying to retaliate for how offended it is. <br /><br />When all else fails TM cultism unmasks itself. Then at last, we see what a thin pretense its 'ideas' are. And what's under that ridiculous pretend 'theory' sheepskin costume.<br /><br />I can only describe (not exemplify) the Terence cult - its belligerent antisocial schizoid and sociopathic features. As I note above, it expresses a distinct pattern of clear consistency - delusional self-righteous spite, infuriated incoherence pretending it has something to say, malignant character disorder etc ... enough pathologies to choke a horse. <br /><br />But for 'live demo' purposes, to help prove the true 'nature and worth' of TMism - what better evidence could anyone ask than to have a 'serious case' rush in to act it all out in plain view, real time? For all and sundry to see, lo and behold.<br /><br />Right on cue. Nothing 'novel' - a dismally typical display of what stoned apes, 'the McKenna mojo' (bozz, the 'resonance') - is really about. Malignant psychodrama, aggression lashing out, helpless to get any satisfaction. Not just clueless, powerless. Even in word, much less deed. <br /><br />As sun sets slowly in the west, chalk up another confirmation - goin' postal. Another piece of evidence in testimony of what we already know. Dig how Terence with his keen grasp of the obvious, scared as he was of the 'elephant in the room' - tried to dispel it by magic words of implicit denial: <br /><br /> “If psychedelics don’t secure a moral community, than I don’t see what the point of it is. Otherwise - we’re just another cult.” Yeah boy - and DUH ... Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-14856275147367174342014-01-04T11:44:01.107-08:002014-01-04T11:44:01.107-08:00Zeuzzz-Godspeed sir!
You know what I like about i...Zeuzzz-Godspeed sir!<br /><br />You know what I like about incredibly articulate imbeciles like Brian Akers? Their detailed diatribes of dissent make it easier to see right through their "academic" arguments. See what you ask? To those who read between the lines, it offers a glimpse into the mind of a person so adversarial that they could disagree with God himself only because of the deepest rooted insecurities that you and I can only fathom. <br /><br />"Hey, look at me! My grammer is awesome!". "Check out my ostentatious use of multisyllabic words!". A wordsmith such as yourself could be nothing else but infalliable. Is that not the implication of the loquacious, verbose and utter vexing nature of Mr. Akers rebuttal to the stoned ape theory?<br /><br />McKenna was self admittedly an intellectual performer offering up theories rooted in facts, observations and extrapolation with psychedelic overtones. I applaud his efforts for thinking outside of the box (or in some cases a dodecahedron).<br /><br />As far as an intelligent critique of Zeuzzz's interpretation of TM's Stoned Ape Theory, Brian only succeeds in illustrating a failure to be able to make a single succinct point. I actually pity his rigidity in entertaining others viewpoints as that is, in my humble opinion, the true basis for rational propagation of intellectual progress and productive discourse. <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07776440542335004960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-30832534682318166862013-12-30T10:07:40.386-08:002013-12-30T10:07:40.386-08:00... JREF, inviting 'friendly and lively' ...... JREF, inviting 'friendly and lively' dscussion, seems to offer a kind of opening for pseudoscience - "I dare you to try and prove me wrong" games. <br /><br />In the 'stoned apes' thread gambit, only two JREFfers (asydhouse & porch) proved notably perceptive, well as sound of character. One voiced a sense I found informative, if regrettable (from my pov). He was disappointed by a surprise perspective that for all its pretense of ‘theorizing,' stoned apes proves in essence, to be an ‘inspirational’ broadcast recruitment operation. <br /><br />As such its valid framework of consideration is not biology, even remotely. Masquerade aside, it goes to comparative religion, history of W. mythology, social psych etc - in a milieu of ideological culture war. Stoned apes comes to the door, seeking attention on grounds of 'lets talk about evolution.' Science-interests who join without realizing, get a pie in the face. Joke's on them. <br /><br />Throughout the McKennasphere, his "sense of humor" is often lauded. But as I find, the "humor" isn't funny - its alienation, the jokes are on sanity. It harbors envy of science's credibility, resentment of its influence etc. Mocking science and reason, by acting serious for a cheap laugh - part of its game. Meaning itself, common cause, better purpose - are its targets and prey. Its really something ...<br /><br />Hard stuff for the prey to realize - rationality's Achilles heel. Some ‘theories’ prove to be Trojan Horses - covert ops, geared devices of cunning purpose they don’t let on about. Whether ‘stoned apes’ or ‘Sci’ Creation, admitting them to discussion on their own dictated terms, as theories rather than ‘coded’ sermons in disguise, subversive guerilla tactics – in effect gives them the shrubbery they demand in tribute. Even with ‘rational’ rebuttal intent, it can serve their stealth objectives, play into their fantasies of power - only encourage them.<br /><br />The JREF 'demo' reflected various type ineffectual attempts by some 'rational' posters to wrestle the 'stoned apes' pig - ‘there’s no evidence for it yet’ (no valid criteria of evidence cited, nor such question even raised. One guy was trying to make 'mycology' arguments, with no more clue about that science than stoned apes has about natural selection. Inviting confusion is one way ‘stoned apes’ secures its goals. Such misconstrued attempts at refuting it can mainly backfire - unwittingly affirming, without even realizing - that indeed, evidence could come along. Therefore ceding one of its claims, it can’t be ruled out. <br /><br />“Its not yet been proven but - its possible” is stoned apes’ game, its script and doctrine - its strategic design. One might as well argue against Adam and Eve on grounds there’s no evidence for them “yet.” <br /><br />Stoned apes, unlike Genesis, has eluded detection so far, for what it is. And it bases a lot of its discourse in technical stuff (epigenetics for example) - that most people just don’t know enough about, to enable them to know what to say and how. Its soo easy to plant doubt in an OJ jury’s mind, about stuff far over their heads as DNA evidence. And that’s all his defense had to do with a jury – not of geneticists or molecular biologists, but – of his peers. <br /><br />I'm studying psychedelia, 'fringe communitarianism' and subversive movements, such as this McKenna cultism. So far I conclude, discussion 'stoned apes' in its own dictated terms - rather than as a ‘cultic wolf in sciencey sheepskin clothing’ - can unwittingly feed in to its attention-seeking strategy. It slyly demands ‘serious consideration’ as a ‘possibility’ - awaiting ‘further proof’ (per its scripted line). Und it hass lilttle vays of getting vhat it vants - as I find. To my considerable ‘spidey sense’ intrigue. <br /><br />Interesting, the times we’re living in. We must have done something wrong to deserve them, if old Chinese curses are any indication. Feel free to contact, incl. private as your purposes and interest indicate.<br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-86131185896530738742013-12-30T09:58:20.713-08:002013-12-30T09:58:20.713-08:00Greetings Greg, Hailing frequencies. Can't hel...Greetings Greg, Hailing frequencies. Can't help a pang of curiosity about your possible awareness and/or interest, per this little-known (except to its own) 'McKenna' layer of contemporary pop subculture. 'Ripe' indeed, well agreed. Ditto viz. posters at JREF 'react.' <br /><br />Per latter: I often cite a key distinction in psychology, between reaction (mainly personal, expressing emotion, attitude etc) - and response (defined by balanced detachment, informed rationality, as opposed to rationalization). Reaction can try to act like response, emotion self-dramatize as if its thought or 'reason.' These seem to be decisive dynamics, socially and culturally, in this topical arena.<br /><br />Per your query: It was connected with studies, that I became a JREF poster - exclusively for that 'stoned apes' thread (founded by our host here). It was part of independent field research, investigating 'community subculture;' especially this 'consciousness movement' (psychedelia). Maybe you know, direct participant observation and interactive inquiry is standard method in ethnography. <br /><br />Among questions in focus: exactly how does covert cultic irrationality of grim determination (like this McKenna preoccupation, almost undetected by society at large) target reason as its prey, with subversive intent? What's going on there, what kind of aggression is this? What exactly are these dubious ambitions - 'monsters from the id?' And how do they operate, on clear intent - against the very foundations of better understanding in our milieu? What are their strategies, tactics, and potential? <br /><br />There are key questions in evidence with subtle, vast and critical dimensions, of profound importance as I find. Even sobering, perhaps. <br /><br />Do you suppose (as I do) rational, educated Romans, hearing a story from the fringes of their era - about some miracle-working peasant rabbi -rolled eyeballs at such dismal rubbish? And gave it no further mind, just shake heads at 'how stupid' ('who would believe that?")? the better to avoid any further annoyance to their rational sensibilities? I'd wager some cracked wise about it, "finding the humor" - another reaction to ease the sense of insult as taken, to intelligence. Do you suppose some high IQ cases even 'theorized' intellectually - why people believe weird things etc.? Good sport, likewise passing as rational response - unconsciously driven to relieve and minimize the offensive 'psychological signal' impact.<br /><br />And if some prescient (streetsmart, animal-aware not just educated) observer of that era had predicted, that absurd story would be coming soon to the door of an empire, push its way in and take it over - they'd have been scoffed at, laughed away by more 'rational' minds, held in sway by the obvious; unable to foresee, and thus be better prepared for, what lies ahead.<br /><br />Apparently sanity has vulnerable points; it can be oblivious to the subliminal - even driven nuts. Forms of insanity that mimic reason can be powerful, decisive, of human bondage for the course of events and history, socially and culturally. Not real comforting. But such are the nuances and subtleties of issues and questions I discover, probing this stuff. Deep, using sharp tools and solid theoretical frameworks (e.g. Wm James, VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, or Festinger, WHEN PROPHECY FAILS - etc).<br /><br />con't ...<br /><br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-53834029208177085672013-12-27T19:52:13.281-08:002013-12-27T19:52:13.281-08:00You are bakers form Jref, right? Have you posted Z...You are bakers form Jref, right? Have you posted Zeuz's original blog, or his most recent on the matter here, to the forum? I'd be curious how the people there react, there was a thread about his 'banning' somewhere there, I'm sure this blog would be ripe fruit for fertile minds there not put of by the current cultural paradigm.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00356041239237112637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-80025814353106043092013-11-29T07:16:50.453-08:002013-11-29T07:16:50.453-08:00"I notice ..."? I notice you still like..."I notice ..."? I notice you still like beating your wife! Why is that? <br /><br />Just kidding ... borrowing your 'attack' rhetoric (and idiom of aggression). Hope you don't mind. "What's good for the goose," you know.<br /><br />Testimony phase is concluded. Yours has been entered (see above), as has mine. Let the record reflect. And - dismissed.<br /><br />All's well that ends well. I'm glad we've had this little talk. Your perplexity about 'this and that' is all yours, and you're welcome to it. I wouldn't partake of all that with you, but thanks for offering. <br /><br />I think we understand each other. Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-60779606752239612522013-11-06T14:29:48.420-08:002013-11-06T14:29:48.420-08:00Brian, I notice you enjoy attacking Mckenna person...Brian, I notice you enjoy attacking Mckenna personally without attacking the facts inb this article so much. Why is this? Ever heard of shooting the messenger but not the message?<br /><br />Also I have now added Roland Griffths new research into this subject (references 31-34) which adds nearly overwhelming support these mushrooms not only benefit us now but would have also benefited our ancestors in prehistory. Just from a one off dose too, continual use is not even necessary. Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-2963654962476315882013-09-12T04:13:51.688-07:002013-09-12T04:13:51.688-07:00HS, thanks for offering the crestfallen those ster...HS, thanks for offering the crestfallen those sterling words of consolation. So much 'theory explainification' such an effort. To have taken such fall, from its perch on a wall. Well ... hopefully, throwing poor doggie a bone like that, can at least help it feel better. Yeah, great article zeuzzz.<br /><br />BTW, just saw this post (by some 'MRock -' something) at another, more recent dust-up over McKenna. One with almost 300 posts (!). And it so reminded me of this (above) 'best summary' as you wryly cite it (wink wink, nudge nudge?). <br /><br />I can do no better than quote it (its from an exchange with another participant). Maybe you'll catch the ... um - resonance (ahem ;-) with the up-above?<br /><br />"You're right too ... the McKenna following is ... not a true cult as you put it... Indeed the term cult itself is problematic, as specialists in neo-religious movements agree... the TM preoccupation is indeed ... ‘cellular’ in structure ... separate autonomous cells, each with its own broadcast sermons, often masquerading to varying degrees as educated theorizing, or something intellectual. But in typical pseudoscience / pseudoscholarly fashion. And sticking to script."<br /><br />For goodness sakes, know what I mean? Be cool. Thanks again for the merciful soothing words, Old Mother Hubbard style. Guy needed that. Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-6451795111131301712013-09-07T13:16:55.818-07:002013-09-07T13:16:55.818-07:00Great article Zeuzzz.
Probably the best summary o...Great article Zeuzzz.<br /><br />Probably the best summary of Mckenna's 'Stoned Apes' on the web.<br /><br />The references are especially interesting.<br /><br />Nice pictures aswell (but how about a Cubensis?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056933498119033246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-44565921387366934202013-08-19T11:33:15.530-07:002013-08-19T11:33:15.530-07:00BTW: Your rhetorical contraption ‘he openly admitt...BTW: Your rhetorical contraption ‘he openly admitted’ (your words) - for trying to protect TM’s ‘honor’ from his own words (“around friends and fringies, it doesn’t trouble me to confess”) - struck a familiar chord, of something right on the tip of memory.<br /><br />Then, I recalled where I’d heard that sound before.<br /><br />Ever read Lewis Carroll, ‘Hunting of the Snark’? In it the Bellman defends a pig accused of deserting his station (his sty), much as you do TM – by first openly admitting to the fact. <br /><br />Then, by sly torture of reason – like yours - this becomes the basis of his ‘not guilty’ brief. For as the Bellman makes clear – it ‘obviously’ means the pig is 100% innocent.<br /><br />You see, as Bellman theatrically declares - in a death-defying stunt of acrobatic rationalization (like yours, as I noticed): his client’s accusers themselves admit – that the pig wasn’t even at the scene of the crime at time of its commission! <br /><br />Well, there it is, as the ‘musical’ king in AMADEUS liked to say. Case closed - by conjured contradiction. Words are magic in a “world made of language” (Teachings of Terence). If the facts do not fit, you must acquit.<br /><br />TM fits well with a brand of 'clever cons' - who seem to think they’re so sly with rationale, they can baffle reason itself - turn meaning itself upside down, safe behind the smoke screen of crafty blabber. He was quite the Liar’s Paradox improv artist, wasn't he? “I am lying” as Harry Mudd told the android, meaning to short-circuit its hardware. He didn’t add: “Compute that!” But he might as well have. <br /><br /><br />Nice sample of TM’s Bellman routine: J. Horgan, WAS PSYCHEDELIC GURU TERENCE MCKENNA GOOFING ABOUT 2012 ...?: "... what did McKenna really think would happen on December 21, 2012? 'If you really understand what I’m saying,' he replied, 'you would understand it can’t be said. It’s a prediction of an unpredictable event.' " <br /><br />No wonder “mind-blowing” - is among the more common excited outbursts of incoherence about TM from his adulators. Who could spin so many variations on Liar’s Paradox, elaborately and extensively as Duh Bard?<br /><br />Btw, despite your chirping about how “open” TM was about admitting (boasting) his deception - I find quite the opposite, based on his words (not yours, thanks). <br /><br />TM makes clear conditions under which he’d be so "open" – “in the company of friends and fringies, it doesn’t trouble me ...” In substituting your words for his, you didn't mention that.<br /><br />TM doesn’t say why he mightn't be so untroubled, apparently, in any other company but his wide-eyed audience, applauding his every word like an army of trained seals. Is it because – nobody asks him, how come? Just gasp, gape-jawed amazement at his Rorschach word blots. Struggling excitedly to find some meaning they can project into them? Then congratulate themselves on how smart they are - for ‘getting it.’ All to affirm whatever Terence says - like: “Nobody’s smarter than you...”<br /><br />Nice try, Bellman - your new nickname. And guess which part your poor maligned hero - unjustly denied the credit he's entitled to, for his ‘theories’ and ‘ideas’ (like this stoned apes turd you’ve polished like some precious gem – such an effort), his priceless contributions to humanity and posterity, to the history of intellectual exploration - gets to play in Carroll’s allegory? Mm-hm.<br /><br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-6124375683500889612013-08-19T06:13:10.153-07:002013-08-19T06:13:10.153-07:00(con't)
You've got yourself cornered with...(con't)<br /><br />You've got yourself cornered with this ridiculous sermon-in-disguise you’ve posted, in TM's name (amen), and defensive theatrics. Your exhibit reflects no more knowledge of epigenetics, or evolution, than you have of the Fischer research. Nor countless other deceptions of which the entire TM web is woven (but pay no attention to that - just some man behind a curtain). <br /><br />No wonder your oppositional defiance to correcting your epigenetics loopers. Indeed, it appears you’re bringing your own spinnerettes to the rescue. Adding new strands, trying to save stoned apes from its own stupidity and - worse - overt deception, dishonesty. As if spinning its web out even further, by acting like some junior science expert, can save it from itself.<br /><br />And as I find, consistently, that type thing is just standard operating procedure in the TM Admiration Society - routine policy, practice, and method, of its missionaries.<br /><br />What credentials in biology can you, anonymous avatar, present here - to back up your “qualified to say” show here? Brian Akers’ are a matter of public record (PhD specialist, plant/fungal biology). <br /><br />And I’m well aware of the TM attitude about that too: "culture not your friend." TM and his wide-eyed devotees in psychedelic counterculture, have a huge problem with authority in any form – like, scientific. They envy and resent its breadth and power, as much as Bible fundamentalist 'science.' They want to be listened to, believed. But all they can do is try to cajole, connive, or demand credibility - unable to command it.<br /><br />So, trying to breezily brush off your red epigenetic herrings - to the guy who pointed them out (me, your humble narrator) - is no surprise. And it can only come off as a transparent stealth maneuver – to protect your ‘theorizing’ from its fatal flaws. And hold yourself and your exposition above criticism - while asserting a posture of false authority. <br /><br />As one with background and training in molecular bio (including enough PCR to choke a horse), its obvious: You don’t know much of anything about epigenetics. And as one well aware of the "TM thing" - a morbidly cult-like pattern claiming psychedelics as its exclusive property - your intent in acting like you do is not very puzzling, in light of the TM missionary service it reflects. Bandying the word about in theatrical fashion, doesn’t alter that.<br /><br />So, its an interesting sequence. When I zeroed in on your epigenetics farce, you first tried to zero out - via “Do you honestly think ...” talk. That didn’t work. <br /><br />Now, take two – you clumsily try same strategy, bringing up laws - inviting me to go all into this and that. Reminder: what I told you on your first take - seems you're trying to 'change the subject' - substitute your own questions to distract, divert, digress (like "do you honestly think that our ancestors ...:?).<br /><br />I’ll wait till you correct yourself on your epigenetic farce, as cited in my original post. You made a one-two blunder. First, you try to dodge and duck fatal flaws of your Epigenetic Ploy. Second, your clumsy tactical attempt at reply by diverting and digressing – further evade the issue, by motion to change the subject. <br /><br />Motion denied. <br /><br />If you want credibility, you’ll need – to be credible. That’s up to you, its no tribute you are owed, like an entitlement. Its earned, on merit. If you could get it by some absurd ‘junior expert’ act – trying to be clever or sly, crafty or whatever you may think you - you’d be all set. Alas for your ‘sciencey circus’ shrine to Terence - you can’t, and you’re not. <br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-39413871019654918812013-08-19T06:06:14.003-07:002013-08-19T06:06:14.003-07:00Oh really? TM “openly admitted” his fraud? As if ...Oh really? TM “openly admitted” his fraud? As if “I’m lying” is an epitome of honest? That comes off as a lame, anti-ethical exercise in whitewash. <br />Nice try. But held up to the light – that crap turns out transparent as a cheap lace curtain. <br /><br />And – what's this I see before me? You’re suddenly trying to change subject to - law, policy? And some mock interest in ‘legitimate’ research? And my "opinions" about something along such line as you cast? Interesting bait.<br /><br />Interesting sequence too. My 1st post noted rampant fallacies of your Epigenetics Ploy. Your pretentious effort to try and rescue stoned apes. As if you can breathe some staged illusion of life into the ‘theory’ - by magic wordplay, Pygmalion-like. <br /><br />And how did you answer? By trying to airily dismiss the holes in your pseudoscience cheese - by fog machine rhetoric. By trying to imply, vaguely as possible (not to get caught in your own web), that such fatal flaws - of which your entire exposition is composed -- are “not what this article is about.” <br /><br />(You mean, a sermon in disguise, pretending to be something scientific – isn’t really about science after all? Will wonders cease ... and DUH)<br /><br />But now you want to go off into issues of laws? On mock concern about ‘legitimate’ (as you breeze it) research. Is that what stoned apes is actually about, then – drug laws?<br /> <br />If so, then why the elaborated act - like “Scientific” Creationism (another prize exercise in evolutionary pseudoscience) - like its some kind of theory? <br /><br />If not, why are you trying to steer away from stoned apes' dramatized subject, evolution and ‘the role of psilocybin’ - as a ‘catalyst’ dontcha know? <br /><br />Or have you quietly moved the goalposts of discussion? Your ‘stay on subject’ rule - the one you tried to misapply to my post before (like, bait and switch) no longer in effect? So now, suddenly – posts no longer need address ‘what this article is about’? <br /><br />Or is it only YOUR comments that needn't be about stoned apes? Is that the explanation - merely the old ‘double standard’ routine? <br /><br />That'd explain the weird shift in your direction, if so. It'd make sense if you have two sets of rules. Special privileges all yours. You can bring up, jaw about whatever, no need to be on topic. But for me to note your distortion of ‘epigenetics’ – using it like a magic word, desperately try to conjure some shred of validity for stoned apes - is somehow ‘not what this article is about' - as you airily rule. <br /><br />It all comes off as a smug excuse, to avoid correcting your blatant errors (if not the spirit behind them) - on some kind of stuffy parliamentary basis. A violation of some rule or order. Its tactically understandable since on substance, you’ve no leg to stand on. Going defensive, you've left yourself with no other recourse. <br /><br />Brian Akershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09350950418007260040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4417710953262989361.post-3471654162079846892013-08-16T15:11:58.453-07:002013-08-16T15:11:58.453-07:00I agree with much of what you just said Brian, tha...I agree with much of what you just said Brian, thanks for the input. By any chance are you called Bakers on JREF? Early on in his talk 'the tree of knowledge' he openly admits that when he wrote foods of the gods he constructed, what he terms as 'a trojan horse', where he admits that even though the book is written in the style of a scientific paper with references he actually did not create a scientifically rigorous document. <br /><br />He just wanted to leave this 'psychedelic trojan horse' in the academia for others more capable to comment on later. In other words, he's insinuating his trojan horse smuggling of psychedlics into academia was done away from the informed criticism of scientists themselves, implying that there is a rich history of psychedelics in human pre history that was taken away by litigious drug laws and not allowed to be seriously studied in academia for the last 50 years or so since the laws were passed.<br /><br />Can I ask you what your opinions about psychedelics being illegal are, and how you think this has effected legitimate scientific inquiry over the last 50 years?Zeuzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019369949809893298noreply@blogger.com