i supposed that words like mysticism cause you to break out into a self righteous rash. try stepping out from behind the veneer of smugness that you have built around yourself and venture beyond your comfort zone if u ever what to know what its like to be a fully realized human being

I, for one, do not break out in a rash over words like "mysticism": I once had a truly prescient dream, which to me was all the more remarkable because in it I foresaw what was perhaps the most inconsequential event of my life. I describe it below.

Of course, TheGreatJuJu's observations apply to that experience:

[M]ysticism effectively resides in a category of analysis that cannot be distinguished from imagination. It's more or less useless in terms of "research," since the results can be neither verified nor falsified outside the claimant's mind … .

To me, your post is an excellent cautionary example of what happens to those who go strolling smugly down the "magical path of possibility thinking". If you're so "fully realized", why did it not occur to you that some of us who debunk 2012 don't reject mysticism out of hand, but do recognize that it suffers from exactly the defects JuJu describes, and that this is the reason why we demand lots of real evidence from people who claim it as the source of their information? Might that possibility have been too far outside your own comfort zone?

Here's the story of my own utterly worthless prescient dream. Please note that I have no history of mental illness, have never used "drugs" (not even marijuana), and to my recollection had not even had a beer within 48 hours of the dream.

The experience started about 10:45 one morning in the fall of 1976, in the Kroll Memorial Lecture Hall in the Hill Hall Metallurgy Building at the Colorado School of Mines. It was Friday, and we were only 5 minutes from the end of Transport Phenomena class, taught by Dr. Frank Lawson, a visiting professor from Australia.

He had just finished his series of lectures on laminar flow, and we hoped he would let us out early. However, conscientious soul that he was, he instead launched into the next subject—turbulent flow—by drawing on the blackboard a table with about 16 entries. These, he explained, were maximum velocities at which molten lead can flow through pipes of various diameters, at assorted temperatures, without becoming turbulent.

The purpose of his table was to show us that laminar flow isn’t common in industrial settings. A useful exercise, but it bored and irritated me that morning. All I wanted to do was get through the next class (thermodynamics, taught by Dr. John P. Hager), then relax a bit before starting on the weekend’s mountain of homework. I paid little attention to the rest of the lecture.

Thermo class came and went; the weekend passed swiftly; and soon it was Sunday night. I went to bed at 11pm. During the night, I dreamed that Dr. Lawson was erasing two of the entries in the table that he had drawn, after which he wrote new ones in their places. I awoke thinking that I’d really become a hurtin’ unit if I couldn’t come up with dreams any better than that one, and thought no more of it.

Ten o’clock that morning found me seated once more in Dr. Lawson’s class. He drew the same table on the board while we students took our seats, then informed us that he had miscalculated two of the entries. I barely paid attention until he turned from the podium, eraser and chalk in hand, and "re-enacted" my dream. I was so startled that my jaw dropped, and I began to shake. It’s hard to describe the experience: it was as though I'd had a movie of the dream running in my memory, and the present suddenly overlaid it exactly for about two seconds.

I’ve recounted this experience to several people over the years. Some accepted it as one of those strange experiences that happen to almost everyone sooner or later, while others (primarily scientists) tried to explain it away by saying that I must have figured out, unconsciously, that the entries were wrong. Their explanation is untenable for three reasons.

First, I couldn’t have known, even unconsciously, that those two entries were wrong. Professor Lawson had scarcely begun lecturing on turbulent flow, and I’d paid little attention. He’d assigned no homework, so I hadn’t learned how to do the necessary calculations. Even if I had, I couldn’t have known that the entries were incorrect without knowing the viscosity of molten lead at the temperatures involved.

I believe, honestly, that if someone had told me on Friday that the table contained two errors among its 16 entries, and that I had all weekend to identify them, I could not have done so, especially on top of all my other homework.

A second reason why "you just figured it out unconsciously" is an unsatisfactory explanation, is that even had I known consciously that the two entries were wrong, I’d never have predicted that Dr. Lawson would correct them in the way that he did. He made no further use of the table in that or any other lecture, so why did he go to the trouble of drawing the whole thing again, errors included? I’d have predicted that he would simply tell us which two of the sixteen values were wrong, then give us the correct ones.

But most importantly, what I’d seen in the dream was not merely the fate of two numbers. Instead, I’d foreseen an event that did indeed occur, and precisely as I’d foreseen it. The table was in the same place on the blackboard. I’d seen it from the same perspective. Dr. Lawson was standing in the same position, with the same posture. Moreover, although he was ambidextrous, dream and reality had again matched perfectly: he’d erased with the left hand and written with the right.

I see no alternative to concluding that in my dream I saw, in exact detail, about two seconds of the future that really weren't worth the bother.

also, i found your tone just a bit…….well what i would expect out of someone who is fundamentally afraid to venture beyond the womb of academia.

So, Jenny (aka "mom"), what you're trying to say is that you can't actually counter anything printed about McKenna on this website, despite really, really, really wanting to. Consequently, you find yourself internally compelled to insult the general authorship and attack claims that no one here ever made, hoping to make yourself feel a little better. Is that about right, and did it work?

…leading us down a magical path of possibility thinking.

i supposed that words like mysticism cause you to break out into a self righteous rash.

Magical path? Can you point to something in reality that can be objectively quantified as "magical?" Also, it bears noting that mysticism effectively resides in a category of analysis that cannot be distinguished from imagination. It's more or less useless in terms of "research," since the results can be neither verified nor falsified outside the claimant's mind, and even the claimant himself often cannot definitively do so. Of course, I would not expect much else from someone whose existence transpires, at least in part, through a haze of psychotropic drugs.

i knew terrence for many years.

Good for you.

i don't claim to speak for him. i do know that he was no charlatan.

We didn't claim that he was. I specifically said in the comments that I did not consider him to be a charlatan, but rather a "bit of a kook".

a also know that he never really claimed to be a poster child for the scientific method.

Again, a claim we did not make. Strawman much?

like the irish pied piper that he was, i believe that he did a wonderful job of leading us down a magical path of possibility thinking

Whoopie.

What, exactly does "possibility thinking" mean to you?

i don't for a second believe that he ever fancied himself a hard scientist otherwise he would have tried harder to enter the arena of academia.

I think you mean "science academia" here, because there are many fields within academia that are not science. McKenna could have gone into philosophy, for example.

his "research" was really along the lines of things that can not be proved by the scientific method. he knew that, we knew that.

Then why bother getting upset if we claim that whatever McKenna was doing, it wasn't science?

also, i found your tone just a bit…….well what i would expect out of someone who is fundamentally afraid to venture beyond the womb of academia.

Well, I'm not in academia. There goes that idea.

i supposed that words like mysticism cause you to break out into a self righteous rash.

No, they don't.

try stepping out from behind the veneer of smugness that you have built around yourself and venture beyond your comfort zone if u ever what to know what its like to be a fully realized human being.

"Smug"? Try a mirror.

What, exactly does "a fully realized human being" mean to you?

terrence was more than timewave zero.

We never said he was only Timewave Zero.

from the posts above i would have to say that there has been a lot of misreading and misunderstanding about both his "theories" and his intent.

Yeah, that can happen when your writing is unnecessarily obtuse, and filled with what is essentially bafflegab.

yeah terrence was my friend and it pains me to think that he is being maligned, discredited and misunderstood in the way your blog presents him.

It's a wiki, not a blog. There are several authors, not just one.

I'll give you 'misunderstood', because I freely grant that I do not understand him. Perhaps you can point out where I "malign" him and "discredit" him? I do think that his drug use contributed to the … um… unique way in which he viewed the world. I also think that his unique way of viewing the world has very little to do with reality.

it hurts to think that this is the way he is being remembered by the next generation.

Too bad. We're not going to handle anyone in the whole "2012" debate with kid gloves, just because they have followers who view that person with a sense of reverence. McKenna's Timewave Zero is one of the central components to the claims that 2012 is somehow significant. It is the source of all of the claims that the Chinese calendar predicted 2012 (or sometimes that it "ends" in 2012), or that the I Ching predicted 2012.

If McKenna's ideas have merit, they can stand having a little bit of light shed on them.

your mom

You aren't my mom, don't you think that was rather presumptuous of you? I also find it intriguing that your post is titled "all science is fiction". I would really like to see you try to support that claim.

If his research was really along the lines of things that can not be proved by scientific method, then what is it proved by?
While there is law against believing in "fantasies" and sharing them with others, fear mongering and scamming should be punishable by law.

Yours truly

your mom

First of all, McKenna did not co-write Maya Cosmogenesis with John Major Jenkins, he merely wrote the foreword. Second of all to say Terence "dreamed up some theory about time during a mind-bender" is at best loaded if not downright slanderous.

To call McKenna pseduoscientific is ridiculous. If you actually read any of his books, you would see quite clearly, that even as wacky as the drug experience with his brother Dennis which lead them to develop the time wave theory was , they absolutely set up that drug experience scientifically with a control and many trials.

To say he did not operate on reason is just a down right lie and indicative of no familiarity with his work whatsoever, and ironically making most of this website guilty of a distinct lack of academia and legitimacy. The man was absolutely brilliant and on cultural issues was quite prescient and always a refreshing voice of reason.

I could just say "I keep up with alot of conspiracy theorists, and on the whole they're pretty darn convinced by the 2012 doomsday" but BBT is actually based on facts and I would be acting like a a-hole.

Yes, and if you thought "astronomers" and "conspiracy theorists" make a good comparison, I would simply feel sorry for you.

What makes me be a bit confused is that great people like Richard Dawkins once said on the Bill O'rilleydiculous show that "No, we cannot prove the evolutionist theory"

Science doesn't deal in proof, as I explained in my previous post. Science deals in evidence and explanation. If Dawkins said that, he is correct, though it's unfortunate if he actually adopted the anachronistic term "evolutionist." I think he has too much of a tendency to reason with people like O'Reilly on their level.

Can't we really say that it is right just because it is the most accurate theory to go with on the moment we're in?

It's right in the same way our equations that describe gravity are right. Yes, it fits the data and makes verifiable predictions, like Tiktaalik. And it is revised as new data is acquired, as is any good theory.

I keep up with a lot of astronomers, and on the whole they're pretty darn convinced by the BBT.

I could just say "I keep up with alot of conspiracy theorists, and on the whole they're pretty darn convinced by the 2012 doomsday" but BBT is actually based on facts and I would be acting like a a-hole.

I really don't know what to say and I think I agree with everything you just said in your comment. What makes me be a bit confused is that great people like Richard Dawkins once said on the Bill O'rilleydiculous show that "No, we cannot prove the evolutionist theory" and I admire his balls of steel to say that in that kind of show. Can't we really say that it is right just because it is the most accurate theory to go with on the moment we're in?

Sorry for going Off-topic,
Pantoleano

Thing is, theories will always be theories until proven right

Theory is as good as it gets in science. Theories don't graduate to something else. They are built on facts, and they either stand the test of time or don't. Also, we don't "prove" theories in science. We falsify them, which is why falsifiability is more or less a requirement for any scientific proposal these days. We can verify predictions according to a given theory, such as the big bang theory predicting the cosmic microwave background or evolution theory predicting the location of what would become Tiktaalik. But these are just facts the theory rests on. The theory remains a theory. It is only "proven" colloquially, insofar as it explains data and is accepted. Technical proof is reserved for mathematics and logic.

in my honest opinion, they aren't certain of most of the things they believe in, for example, the Big Bang theory.

That's certainly a strange opinion. I keep up with a lot of astronomers, and on the whole they're pretty darn convinced by the BBT. If you're expecting science to produce some absolutist form of certainty, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Terrence McKenna might have been a bit crazy with his theories,

Terrence McKenna doesn't have any theories. He has claims.

just be a little bit open minded.

In the sheer absence of evidence, it is commonly incumbent upon most mystics to ask their audience to be "open minded."

Thing is, theories will always be theories until proven right, but take a look at the Higgs Boson particle, everybody knows it exists because if it didn't most of the advanced equations and formulae that we use to describe the universe wouldn't make sense at all. But we've never seen it. But we know it's there. Bit of a paradox, aye?

Scientists are in my honest opinion the most sceptic people on earth, however, in this subject (studying the universe) that also and again, in my honest opinion, they aren't certain of most of the things they believe in, for example, the Big Bang theory. Yes, we are walkiing towards knowledge but at the moment the knowledge we have is so little that I get terrified just to think that I'll probably never see anything as great as I expect. And we live in exponential times :)

Now, I know I got a bit out of topic but all I wanted to say was: We cannot be 100% sceptic, just open your mind a little bit. Terrence McKenna might have been a bit crazy with his theories, or maybe we're just not used to that kind of stuff because of the way we evolved in the last 3000 years (yes, all those religions and supersticions). Just take a VERY UNIQUE look at your perspective from a different perspective, just be a little bit open minded. Remember that the brain is a very complex tool we have and it's complexity can only be compared to the universe.

Now, thanks for reading, it is late for me and I am enjoying this talk, must register here :)

It is one thing to claim that some theories of the universe predict multiple dimensions. It is quite another thing to claim that one can "get in touch" with them through the use of psychedelic drugs.

I'm with Simon on this… McKenna may have had some interesting ideas, but he didn't bother with all of that pesky 'evidence' stuff.

I believe McKenna (as well as fellow psychonaut/novelist/comedian Robert Anton Wilson with his "Jumping Jesus" model) may have been pointing to an idea that there will come a day that we will see more technological/worldly change in an hour than we have in 20,000 years — that can be perceived as anything you want it to mean (either cataclysmicly bad or astoundingly good or both or neither). Disregarding the methodology of how he came to this, I view it as being more philosophically based than science-based. I believe there's definitely some truth to what they're saying, but I just wouldn't put a date on it — at least not in a date that is in three years from now anyways.

R.A. Wilson use to always jokingly say he could just be talking out of his arse for all anyone knows, which is a good sign that he might have not taken himself as seriously as some might believe. It's possible McKenna may have felt a similar way… It'd be interesting to hear what they had to say now considering the propulsion of the 2012meme in popular culture over the last few years…. Unfortunately, due to the handicap of being dead, I don't think they're going to be able to speak up about it anytime soon.

I'm a fan of Wilson and McKenna (Wilson probably more-so) but more as modern philosophers rather than scientists.

That is the basis of the scientific method, isn't it? Peer review? No, I don't consider myself to be McKenna's peer, although he sounds like he would have been a lot of fun to be around.

I've seen some transcripts of interviews where McKenna seems to be implying that he didn't take the "timewave zero" idea too seriously himself.

I'm not sure where the comment about the "Christian church" is coming from… left field perhaps?

Take the time to do a search for the Norway spiral. You will see just how gullible people are.
Conspiracy theorists have already tackled this subject and they have called it everything between a wormhole to a black hole to a ripple in time.

I've never seen so much media induced bull…crap in my life.