it would be good to include a bit more on Mckenna's work in that article.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what exactly you think is missing, what you feel is worthy of further attention, and why.

Terence McKenna's ideas deserve more than that meagre paragraph and dismissal, even if it is made clear that they are not strictly scientific.

I disagree.

But would these hypothetical dimensions I am talking about completely contradict scientific inquiry?

I have no idea. You won't say much about them, except that they are inaccessible to logic and science. Then out of the other side of your mouth, you assert that ATLAS at LHC might "detect" them.

I mean, despite my lack of knowledge of these supposed dimensions, I don't think their existence would have to contradict scientific knowledge, because they cannot be investigated in a material sense.

You said, "As mentioned before, it is likely that there are other dimensions which cannot be ventured by scientific expedition, can't be measured by scientific apparatus, but may however, be conquered by the transcendent nature of human consciousness. Yes, I am aware that CERNs’ ATLAS experiment is trying to search for these extra dimensions, but my point is that it is possible that not everything is manifested in a material sense."

You can't have it both ways. Also, you're still just speaking of made-up concepts that not even you can apparently explain (e.g. "cannot be investigated in a material sense," yet you simultaneously propose that ATLAS might do just that).

I know the more complicated the proposition becomes, the easier it is to knock down and disprove

Well, that should tell you something.

…but I am making the proposition based upon, yes, my imagination but also scientific knowledge such the detection of these dimensions.

While contradicting yourself in the process.

Well considering I am not sure if we are even able to interact with these dimensions…

Or if they even exist….

…by spiritual means, I am alluding to things along the lines of meditation and contemplation.

That doesn't make any sense, because then you say:

I guess I define spiritual as pertaining to an immaterial reality in which we may be able to access through meditation and contemplation or maybe even through death?

What is an "immaterial reality?" What "immaterial reality" does one access by meditating or contemplating? That seems really tautologous, like you're defining "spiritual" as "spiritual." At best, you've taken an undefined term and purported to define it with other undefined terms.

As far as a referent goes, do you view everything in a scientific and reductionist way, or do you view some aspects of reality as being incomprehensible by human beings.

That just dodges my question.

My world-view rests on three axioms — existence, consciousness, identity — in that order. I'm not an Objectivist, but I agree with Rand up to a point. I'm not utterly opposed to the idea of emergent "mental" properties, though I have no reason to think reality extends beyond matter and energy. Even if it does, no one making such claims has yet shown a method for apprehending reality in this manner that can be distinguished from imagination. Even if your extra dimensions exist, it in no way follows that they are necessarily "immaterial" (whatever that means) in nature.

I don't know what you mean by "some aspects of reality as being incomprehensible by human beings." Only two possibilities spring to mind:

• Something is incomprehensible, and I am at least aware of it, in which case I might conduct experiments and analysis to improve my understanding.
• Something is incomprehensible, and I am unaware of it, in which case neither you nor I have anything to work with.

None of that is particularly relevant to whether you can provide a referent in reality for the term "spiritual."

For example, explaining the cause of the big bang, finding meaning in one’s life and just other mysteries that cannot be explained through scientific inquiry.

"[Explaining] the cause of the big bang" first requires an assumption of causality. Our math breaks down at or prior to the Planck Epoch, so at this time there really is no reason to make that assumption in that context. We really have little to no idea what was going on "before," to whatever extent that term is even meaningful.

I find meaning in my life, sure, but I see no reason to assume this process can't reduce to biological processes. Likewise, anything that "cannot be explained through scientific inquiry" A) might be at some point in the future, and B) even if it isn't, that is hardly a green light for invoking magical/spiritual dimensions and other ostensibly imaginary constructs.

An immaterial reality.

Yeah, but what is that?

I'm not sure if this qualifies and I don't know too much about science but in objective reality we have examples like gravity, quantum entanglement which are phenomena that occur in the universe that can be understood to a certain extent, but they cannot be fully explained in a material sense.

Gravity is a product of mass. Regardless of its exact nature (which some scientists hope to explain through the projected Higgs), it has observable, quantifiable, repeatable and predictable effects on reality. Quantum entanglement, which deals with divided particles, is a product of wave interaction, and it is also an observable phenomenon with measurable effects in the real world.

You're kind of playing with words to make a point, but I think it's a mistake. You said (emphasis added), "…we have examples like gravity, quantum entanglement which are phenomena that occur in the universe that can be understood to a certain extent, but they cannot be fully explained in a material sense."

Actually, it's more accurate to say that we just don't entirely understand them. You can't even explain what "immaterial" is, so you certainly have no grounds on which to declare that something cannot be explained materially. At best, you might say that we can't explain it at this time, but once again this doesn't give anyone license to invoke magical/spiritual dimensions and other ostensibly imaginary constructs, which in this case don't explain anything.

Like I mentioned above about how contemplation maybe considered a way in which we interact with the discussed immaterial reality.

You asserted it, but you haven't explained how or even what an "immaterial reality" is. Nancy Lieder claims to telepathically communicate with aliens who dwell in the Zeta Reticuli system, but I couldn't believe her even if I wanted to.

Well I don’t' believe in God, but as I used it as an example I guess the widely accepted definition of God is "a perfect, supernatural being which is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of the universe"?

And I would call that definition circular and self-detonating, but I'm not going to get into theological philosophy here.

I mean I guess I use science and logic as a standard of evidence up to a certain point, but then you get these contemplative questions like "what is the purpose of the universe?

Why do you assume the universe has a purpose?

…etc which cannot be described by science and eventually not logic,

When you ask a loaded question, based on an assumption that has no demonstrable connection to reality, why are you surprised when it can't be answered with a method developed to explain said reality?

so yes, I guess then it comes a matter of faith and imagnation. Interesting video and fallacy, I’ll try avoiding it in the future.
Thanks for the discussion!

Anytime.

Terrence McKenna took the "King Wen" sequence of the I Ching and assigned it an importance far beyond anything reasonable.

What is the "King Wen sequence of the I Ching"? The I Ching is a system of fortune telling. It uses 64 'hexagrams'. Each hexagram is a series of six lines. Each of the lines is either broken or solid. A complete list can be found here.

The "King Wen" sequence is a particular ordering of the complete set of 64 hexagrams. A description of it can be found here.

Traditionally, it is asserted that King Wen assembled the 64 hexagrams into this sequence while he was imprisoned.

Please excuse the sarcasm in the next paragraph, but I need to make a point:

Thousands of years ago, people made up a system of fortune-telling that involved some lines scribbled on sticks or tokens. Later someone arranged them in a specific sequence, which (thousands of years later) another person would use to assert that time is fractal and the world will undergo a cataclysmic change in 2012.

Yeah. Right.

Probably not, but you're just trying to have the cake and eat it, too. If these "dimensions" are detectable scientifically, then they clearly are not the sole domain of whatever ill-defined state or mechanism you're claiming.

But would these hypothetical dimensions I am talking about completely contradict scientific inquiry? I mean, despite my lack of knowledge of these supposed dimensions, I don't think their existence would have to contradict scientific knowledge, because they cannot be investigated in a material sense. I know the more complicated the proposition becomes, the easier it is to knock down and disprove, but I am making the proposition based upon, yes, my imagination but also scientific knowledge such the detection of these dimensions.

How does one "interact" with something via "spiritual means?" How do you define "spiritual?" What is the referent in reality for that term?

Well considering I am not sure if we are even able to interact with these dimensions, I cannot offer a definitive answer but by spiritual means, I am alluding to things along the lines of meditation and contemplation. I guess I define spiritual as pertaining to an immaterial reality in which we may be able to access through meditation and contemplation or maybe even through death? As far as a referent goes, do you view everything in a scientific and reductionist way, or do you view some aspects of reality as being incomprehensible by human beings. For example, explaining the cause of the big bang, finding meaning in one’s life and just other mysteries that cannot be explained through scientific inquiry.

what is a "higher plane of existence?"

An immaterial reality.

Even if that is true, of what use are your claims if you can't connect them to something resembling objective reality?

Once again, good point.
I'm not sure if this qualifies and I don't know too much about science but in objective reality we have examples like gravity, quantum entanglement which are phenomena that occur in the universe that can be understood to a certain extent, but they cannot be fully explained in a material sense.

How does contemplating existence "exceed the material confines of the universe?" What does that even mean, and how do you know what the "material confines of the universe" are?

Like I mentioned above about how contemplation maybe considered a way in which we interact with the discussed immaterial reality.

First, I would be forced to ask for a definition of "God."

Well I don’t' believe in God, but as I used it as an example I guess the widely accepted definition of God is "a perfect, supernatural being which is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of the universe"?

Then what is your standard of evidence? If science and logic are out, how do you discern between truth and falsehood?

It's a good question, I mean I guess I use science and logic as a standard of evidence up to a certain point, but then you get these contemplative questions like "what is the purpose of the universe? etc which cannot be described by science and eventually not logic, so yes, I guess then it comes a matter of faith and imagnation. Interesting video and fallacy, I’ll try avoiding it in the future.

Thanks for the discussion!

If not, kudos. But then I'd have to question why the hell not.

If it did, well… yeah. You'll see exactly why rational thought is what makes McKenna out to be such a joke these days.

He did himself in in the end (literally even if you think about it!). This is not us just hating a 'great mind' with our 'corrupted intelligence'. The guy looned out in the end.

take him as seriously as you think you need to. He DID have some theories worth mentioning, and they deserve the same level of respect that any theory does.

But yes, I don't believe any of these 2012 claims, I just find Timewave Zero interesting. I have not looked into it enough to make a full judgement, but I am guessing it is just bogus as it seems impossible etc.

Thanks for the discussion, anyway I should probably go and do my homework.

You said

I agree with this set of guidelines in regards to claims/theories to some extent. However, the first point about how coherently the theory/claim is presented is subjective to how well you understand the theory yourself.

If you mean to say that even McKenna didn't understand his claims, then I'll be happy to let the matter drop. If you're saying that the problem lies with those who find him difficult to understand, then that's a different matter.

I worked in a technical-writing group for years, where our guiding principle was that if more than a very few of the intended readership couldn't understand what we'd written, then it was our responsibility to rewrite it until it was understood. I don't accept the explanation that McKenna was writing about phenomena that aren't accessible to normal states of consciousness, because the portions of his introduction to John Major Jenkins' Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 that do deal with such phenomena tend to be carelessly inaccurate. (For example, his statement, on p. xxv, that "the winter solstice will eclipse the galactic center".)

Regarding your statement that

I have not looked into any of the other mentioned advocates [of hallucinogens], …

To save you some time, here is an example where 2012Hoax gave some of the "best and brightest" of the 2012 movement an opportunity to explain why they remain unaware of gross errors in "2012 astronomy", even though some of their group have used hallucinogens and communicated with interdimensional beings for years. I think you'll find their responses interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that even if a hallucinogen proponent fails to hold up his end of the bargain as an author, I'm still obligated to give his next book serious consideration. I'll explain how such authors' works fit into my every-day situation, then let you decide how much attention I should pay them after they've already dropped the ball once.

I deal with real people who have real problems, in a deteriorating situation in a part of the world that needs the very best from every physically and psychologically sound person. Among my acquaintances are mentally ill persons who are somewhat functional. I'm one of the few people who spend time listening to them (sometimes for hours on end) so that they don't go downhill for lack of human contact.

I also write and translate instructional materials in math and science. That's a serious need not only for the people who live here, but for volunteers who come to work on projects: many have told me that they could do more, if only they could understand the technical documents in their field.

In the last year, because of the number of people affected by "2012", I've also spent a lot of time on that issue.

There are only so may hours in the day, so the reality is that every hour I spend reading stuff by the likes of McKenna is an hour I can't spend on the work I've just described.

This may seem like a contradiction, but my underlying point is that science cannot explain everything.

Probably not, but you're just trying to have the cake and eat it, too. If these "dimensions" are detectable scientifically, then they clearly are not the sole domain of whatever ill-defined state or mechanism you're claiming.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it's not completely ridiculous to suppose that there other dimensions that we may be able to interact with i.e. through spiritual means.

How does one "interact" with something via "spiritual means?" How do you define "spiritual?" What is the referent in reality for that term?

Well, the transcendent nature of human consciousness is our ability to perceive things in a spiritual sense.

Define "spiritual" and attach it to something in reality. Otherwise, you might as well be making up concepts and words.

I mean I don’t know if you consider yourself spiritual, but I believe that as humans we are capable of interacting with a higher plane of existence.

See above, and what is a "higher plane of existence?"

I don’t have a specific concept of this plane

Well, that is problematic for you.

…but I suggest that not everything can be proven or disproven with science.

Even if that is true, of what use are your claims if you can't connect them to something resembling objective reality?

When I use the term transcendent I mean it in terms of human’s beings being able to contemplate existence. We exceed the material confines of the universe. Whether or not you agree, I don’t know.

How does contemplating existence "exceed the material confines of the universe?" What does that even mean, and how do you know what the "material confines of the universe" are?

I mean it’d be impossible to describe

Well, that's convenient.

…it's similar to asking "If God were real, what would he be made of?”

First, I would be forced to ask for a definition of "God."

The idea of God is not logical, so you are running against the wind if you try explaining God through logic.

Then what is your standard of evidence? If science and logic are out, how do you discern between truth and falsehood? Making claims, then declaring them immune to logical or scientific analysis, is to make claims that I cannot distinguish from your imagination. In scientific terms, see Elliott's Moon Spoon. In philosophical terms, Ayn Rand called these sorts of ideas floating abstractions.

I used theory for lack of a better word, but I guess claim would be more suitable?

Yes, I think so.

I guess in both situations, a theory/claim is being persecuted. I am invoking Galileo as his persecution is a well recognized example. The bottom line of my comparison was that radical theories that go against the main way of thinking during the era are often persecuted heavily. For Galileo the main way thinking of the era was derivative of Christianity, whereas for Terence the main way of thinking for the era is through science. Possibly not the best example that could have been used, but I could not think of another. I was hoping the idea however was there.

McKenna is not being persecuted. He is being criticized, at least to what extent his ideas permit. When the crux of a position hinges on imagination, dreams, hallucinations or what have you, the claims by definition are going to be suspect, because they cannot be shown to refer to anything real. If you are willing to accept claims that cannot be distinguished from imagination, then none of the McKenna-centered criticism on this website should bother you, since nothing said about him here has anything to do with your consideration of such ideas.

Galileo, on the other hand, did have testable, falsifiable evidence.

Are you certain of this?

I'm certain that McKenna provided no reason to think otherwise.

No, I'll be serious for a moment now: take him as seriously as you think you need to. He DID have some theories worth mentioning, and they deserve the same level of respect that any theory does.

Go through the process, find it's flaws, laugh at it's face afterward.

… So yeah. Don't take him seriously, but don't assume ALL his work is as insane as Novelty/Timewave Zero theory.

Oh trust me, it doesn't get too much more batshit than that.

Let me think of two impossible scenarios to debunk this bad boy.

1) An immovable object and an unstoppable force existing in our universe.

Opps, that is strictly NOT possible.

2) Me having a hot dragon girl, cat girl, wolf girl, fox girl, and every other non-furry-just-a-fetish girl harem.

:D

Or

3) Our planet turns into a chocolate bunny.

… Yeah. This theory is stupid.

Be fair here. Stoned Ape is an amusing theory.

I'm glad you're amused. What Xavier has been saying is that I should take McKenna seriously. I don't see why I should.

I haven't touched much of his work, since I do not like the man due to Timewave Zero, but I do not think all of his work was 'woo-worthy'. If it was, he would not be remotely taken seriously by anyone in regards to Timewave Zero, which IS insane.

So, it's a possibility he had some good work, if not a little odd work, and… then farted out the woo-bomb and yeeeeah.

To compare McKenna to a conspiracy theorist or totally insane woo-woo would be inaccurate. But he could be labeled as a woo-woo when the Timewave Zero fiasco started.

Comparing Timewave Zero to Nibiru, one thing comes to mind immediately: Both are totally mind-boggling to even begin to consider as a possibility when taken into rational thought.

The fact that McKenna openly fiddled with the Timewave Zero dates, manipulated the base and end point to fit his own theme, and ultimately just bullshitted the entire thing to try to make it legitimate… is just proof to the fact of how ludicrous it is. This is not even considering the whole 'Everything that can happen will happen at this moment!' But how can this be judged by a man-made tool?

We do not understand many things. We likely never will. How can a device created by a man tell us things when the intelligence of a machine is only equal to, and never greater, than the person who built it? I use machine as a metaphor, not a literal statement by the way.

To suggest McKenna knew EVERYTHING about the universe would be immediately laughable. I could not begin to take anyone seriously who thinks this is remotely feasible in any light. A combination of pseudoscience and numerology is what Timewave Zero was. McKenna likely was well aware of his health conditions and wanted to leave a legacy behind him.

A legacy only he and those he closely trusted could rightly decode and figure out. This, in turn, is the classic example of someone who doesn't want to be proven wrong. Immortalized.

But, no. Even if I took any of McKenna's work to heart, Timewave Zero is stupid. You do not even attempt to claim that your process can predict 'Everything Possible Ever Will Happen At This Point', when that is not a possibility due to human intelligence and the knowledge obtained over the ages.

That which is created cannot surpass the intelligence of that which created it. Not counting organics, mind you. That's silly to compare.

And, really? At the end of the day? Selecting a major date like the start point for Timewave Zero that everyone is aware of… and then using your little method of pseudo(Bullshit)science and numerology to go "Oh hey it connects to 2012 which has a load of BS rumored about it! THIS WILL MAKE MY THEORIES MORE REALISTIC!" etc etc.

You think it'd do the exact opposite.

Sigh. Sheep.

So, yeah. To sum it up… McKenna's work is not all insane. Some has some real thought behind it and is worth looking at.

Timewave Zero? Another new age/awakening/whatever the hell the kids call it piece of bull. The man could have gone down in history as, while addicted to drugs, a man with a lot of interesting work. What he did in the end, though? Is help convince people of some BS doomsday scenario or otherwise "Holy Crap" moment, and thusly shit on the lives of everyone still alive to sit through 2012.

I can't fathom what he was thinking when Timewave Zero was presented. I just can't. Maybe it was him honestly thinking he discovered something. Maybe the drugs finally got to him. Maybe he wanted to be remembered for something.

… Probably a mix of all three. The end result? His stupid theory is not helping in this hoax. As a result, regardless of his 'less crazy' contributions? He damned himself for destroying his credibility by humping the 2012 leg.

Respect the man all you want, but when you jump that shark? You no longer deserve to be known as anything more than a fool.

Terence has made an array of other non-astronomical claims that have advocated the use and research of hallucinogens which have had more scientific basis, for example his 'Stoned Ape' theory.

Fine, he's made more claims. In other words, more unsubstantiated "woo". He was either too ignorant or too mind-fried to see through Jenkins' lunacies about the Maya, so I don't see why I have any obligation to listen to his "woo".

That's like me showcasing apples for a living, and then one day I slip in an orange and pass it off as an apple. Since I've been doing it for so long, you believe me. And that point on, when you see someone call an orange an orange, you call them a liar and say I sold it as an apple.

It's stupid logic but it works.