Talk:Mind at Large

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Removed Other Authors Section

Removed this section since it's own premise is completely and embarrassingly false. The ability to use only 10% of our brains has been proven false time and time again. Something being "somewhat logical to assume" does not make good grounds for an entry in an encyclopedia. See:http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp etc etc etc --Elysianfields (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent comments

The whole second half of the article is garbage. It does not belong here. Its conjecture, plain and simple. Independent "research". Wilson was another amazing author, but its ridiculous to support what Huxley meant using anything from Prometheus Rising, since it was published after his death. Its ridiculous to support what Huxley meant by anything but material from Huxley himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.144.67 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what Huxley meant in the Doors of Perception (particularly with regard to Mind at Large) is somewhat damaged by the misquotations he uses in the pivotal section. I have spent the last year writing an extensive paper on this: See here [1]

In short, Huxley manipulated a key quotation to remove qualifiers that didn't serve his purpose in the Doors of Perception. The fact that there are two key ommisions and one word has been changed suggest that he was relying on the obscure nature of the paper (C.D. Broad's 1949 'The Relevance of Psychical Research to Philosophy: [2] ) for people not to spot the changes!

The misquoted section from Broad is now attributed on some 1,000+ websites as a direct quote from Huxley... when he didn't say it... nor did the person who he's citing!

This is compounded by the fact that he extrapolates on Mind at Large while making it clear that he didn't have a Mind at Large experience. In fact, talking about how lovely his trousers and the curtains and flowers and CVS looked to him makes it seem like he had a mild acid trip not a form of universal pansentience. Adewebbexeter (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]