Talk:Terence McKenna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Philosphy section

This article is brief but seems relatively accurate. Perhaps his ideas should be expanded upon, and his philosophical kinship with Phillip K. Dick mentioned.

or his kinship with joyce, or sheldrake, or McLuhan, or etc. You can always add a ==Philosophy== subsection if you like. — Clarknova 04:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stoned ape theory - great appeal and intuitive strength?

No offense, and while the comparison of the stoned ape theory compared to the rest of his theories is rather interesting, I don't think it's exactly neutral-perspective. I, for one, do not find that it (instantly) has " great appeal and intuitive strength".. --PeterWoodman 05:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That, and I'm pretty sure the theory doesn't belong to McKenna, as I distinctly remember hearing him attribute it to others. He did popularize it, though. Sounds like we need a citation request. —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stoned ape theory - perhaps greater appeal as science finds out more about DNA...

Quoting from the original article:

His hypothesis that psilocybin induced a phase change in human evolution is necessarily based on a great deal of supposition interpolating between the few fragmentary facts we know about hominid and early human history. But perhaps its most significant problem is its inconsistency with natural selection (the central concept of evolutionary theory) which cannot favor any variations, no matter how adaptive, unless they result from an allele or genetic factor.

Here are some articles about what is now called a second genetic code, exploring how certain substances (in this case toxic chemicals in an environmentalist context) may have an effect on DNA and cause inheritable changes. Link: http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ht061012.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.213.188 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this takes an overly simplistic view both of what constitutes an "allele or genetic factor" and of what Terence was actually saying. It is not necessary for the "enlightenment" conferred by psilocybin to be heritable for it to confer a selective advantage (the heritability of "culture" is a different topic entirely); all that is necessary is for the ability to metabolize psilocybin to be heritable. If there is indeed a selective advantage, one would expect to see a heightened sensitivity to the effects of psilocybin in humans over time. Unfortunately, there have been few attempts to study its effects of nonhuman primates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.24.207 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

About the note "Many find this explanation implausible, as it commits McKenna to a Lamarckian interpretation of evolution wherein acquired characteristics (e.g. an adaptave advantage resulting from consuming a hallucinogen) are assumed to be propagated genetically". I suspect that no one actually ever bothered so much to worth the "many" at the beggining of the phrase, and I also think that this explanation about why these unnamed "many" people see this hypothesis as implausible was just made up for the article. As far as the article explains it, there's not implicit need for any lamarckian mechanism (and neither for some epigenetic inheritance, as proposed above by someone else). If the drug use were adaptive, it could have been transmited culturally, as just other part of technology, or something between dietary habits, medicine and technology. If I recall, in Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden he mentions that some tribes in Africa use drugs for hunting, but I think that that the benefits were other than visual accuity (if I recall, they could endure the boredom better, but I'm not sure; I think that people in Bolivia chew coca leaves for that reason anyway). If it had some effect on the origin of language, could be that the drug effect just pushes for something that was already present on the genetic and phenotypic makeup of the species; as an example, it's not hard to imagine that if we give some violence-inducing drugs to few influential chimps of a group, we could ignite a culture of violence that would last even after we suspended the use of the drug; inversely, if the drug is some sort of aphrodisiac, perhaps we could turn chimps into "bonobos". And the use of drugs could have had effect on the normal, mainstream, darwinian selection of genes too. If there were alelles that were specially adaptive when paired with the use of some drugs, they could have been selected as well. I'm not making a case for such theory, I just think that the explanation given here is apparently weak and dubious as the reason why "many" unspecified scientists would doubt it. If it's doubted by many scientists, perhaps it's because it makes stronger, unsupported, claims of the role of the use of drugs (like in the origin of language), but I'm totally new to this "theory" and I don't know --Extremophile (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish that 71.67.97.14 would actually explain why he feels it necessary to use so many weasel words and quite frankly silly hedgings such as saying that new dietary components "could" be adaptive as opposed to "can". Apparently he's never so much as grown bacteria in a petri dish. In his "seeking the stone" lecture, Terence quite specifically stated that he believed early hominids began consuming psilocybe mushrooms as a food source and the psychedelic experience was a happy coincidence that conferred additional benefits besides nutrition. Over time, humans receptive to psilocybin were at an advantage, and so were their offspring. One must be willfully obtuse to characterize this as "stoned apes passing on their stoned-ness to their children", especially as Terence was a student of biology. As I mentioned elsewhere, this narrow view of what constitutes a trait clearly precludes the development of language, agriculture, toolmaking, et cetera. If 71.67.97.14 actually believes that none of these human traits evolved, he/she is probably a creationist, given that human genes have in fact been linked to "behaviors" such as language (FoxP2 has a mutation unique to humans that allows for greater vocal complexity) toolmaking (we, along with homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, and australopithecus robustus have much longer thumbs than chimps) and agriculture (microcephalin, a gene that basically encourages brain growth, has been under selection for 5,800 years, i.e. since the dawn of agriculture.) I will revise this section to reflect this, because this "behaviors can never evolve" nonsense is very tiring. --Scarshapedstar (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To upgrade article

There are a range of Wikipedia sources that can help you out. All articles must meet WP:V. To learn how to a proper citing style, consult WP:CITE. For what kind of external links are acceptable, WP:EL is a useful set of guidelines. Good luck! GBYork 18:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Link?

The link to an "audio archive of McKenna's lectures" under External Links doesn't seem to go to any such thing. Rosencomet 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stoned Ape climate change

I'm not sure I agree that McKenna says that mushrooms disappeared from our diets because of climate change - I thought he said that they dissapeared because of population increase - there weren't enough to go round. He also says that mead was invented because honey was used to store mushrooms and this honey and mushroom brew was used in early religious ceremonies, gradually as time went on and people increased and mushrooms diminished, the amount of mushrooms in the mead decreased and the amount of alcohol increased.

Need to check my well-worn copy of 'Food of The Gods'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.113.185 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Philosopher?

This seemed too free use of the word. There is a tendency for the supporters of any thinker or seer type figure to label them a philosopher on wikipedia. I think evidence is needed that he has really added to philosophyA Geek Tragedy 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By definition, any 'thinker-type figure' is a philosopher:

phi·los·o·pher -noun

1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

2. a person who is deeply versed in philosophy.

3. a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc.

4. a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason.

5. a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, esp. under trying circumstances.

6. Obsolete. an alchemist or occult scientist.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

But AGT, do you really think it's appropriate to ask for an in-article citation of the definition of a word? It's just silly, especially when anyone can simply type in "Dictionary.Com" if they are unsure of what characteristics constitute a philosopher.

I understand that you are simply concerned that people might use Wikipedia articles to voice fandom-related silliness. Regardless, you must remember that injudiciously pasting {{Fact|date=February 2007}} tags after sentences that we don't like the sound of ends up causing greater harm. The tag loses its intellectual meaning and becomes an editorial marker; it has the effect of saying "how silly that anyone could ever consider this bozo a Philosopher!"

The problem arises that any statement can be thrown into question by a request for greater/deeper elaboration (have you ever seen a young child drive their parent crazy by asking "Why?" all the time?) Part of the difficulty inherent to the task of editing is simply knowing when to edit. If you are unsure, it's a good idea to ask the community if an edit is necessary first, unless the information in question is hateful or potentially libelous.

--Museerouge 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It wasn't really the definition of the word I was meaning to query, and I certainly didn't mean any personal attack on Terence McKenna (about whom I have no opinion). However I have certain problems with the free use of the word "philosopher". Namely that except when used used about people who are trained and employed as professional philosophers (nearly always in academia), or who a talked about as philosophers by those who are, it is a loaded term. It is very often added to opening paragraphs meaning "wise person". A professional philosopher may or may not be wise but is a philosopher in a sense which is at least verifiable.

Given that the primary definition of philosopher is "a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields," {{fact}} meant just; that a citation would be appropriate that he has worked on such areas. I admit that the article does talk about views on meta-physics but very many have gone on record with views about the meta-physical (with a greater or lesser degree of thought behind them) and to call them all "philosopher" would be misleading. Hence I think it is justified asking for a citation that a citation showing him being considered as such.

As a side note the edit history of Ayn Rand is quite interesting on the use of the word "philosopher" in a wikipedia article. The community there insisted on a rather high standard of supporting evidence that she was rightly so called.

Finally if you want to remove the {{fact}}, I shall not replace it. A Geek Tragedy 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing the philosopher attribution altogether, leaving the philosopher attribution without the {{fact}} tag, or making the philosopher attribution and using the Link-to-Discussion-Page {{talk}} tag after it.

Mr. McKenna's personal philosophies are not my concern; that is a matter for community discussion (or perhaps peer review) as well as a matter in which I personally would rather not effect (nor affect) a judgement one way or the other. To clarify: I am not interested in wether McKenna should be considered a philosopher or not. I was simply using hyperbole as a comic segue. (On a related personal note, I have been told that I have a strange sense of humor.)

My concern is with the integrity of NPOV in the encyclopedia as a whole - specifically, in this instance, with the editorial use of the {{fact}} tag. While it is obvious that the tag was added in an attempt to foster positive dialog on the issue with which you find objection (namely: wether Mr. McKenna has the qualifications to be referred to as "philosopher"), a better way in which to encourage debate on the issue is to substitute the {{talk}} tag for the {{fact}} tag.

As I stated in my post above, the {{fact}} tag can be misused as detractory commentary instead of as a marker of uncertainty. My experience on Wikipeida has fortunately tended to indicate that in the majority of cases this is done accidentally rather than maliciously. Regardless, how we organize and call attention to the facts can prove to be almost as important as the facts themselves.

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization ...

— Neutral Point Of View

In conclusion, in summation, ad nauseam: try different tags, preview the changes, see which comes off as most neutral. Oh, and discuss, {{discuss}}, {{talk}}.

P.S.- If any new editors are wondering how to emulate the syntax for any of the tags mentioned above, simply click on the "edit" link to the right of this section, scroll down to where the tag was in the text, and copy-and-paste the bits in the weird symbols. Then try them out in the sandbox. Cheers --Museerouge 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree I should have asked on here first. Sorry. Anyone object to "Terence McKenna is an American writer on metaphysics and counter-culture." as an opening sentence? A Geek Tragedy 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs Major Work

This article reads like whoever wrote it was stoned. :-) Wish I had time to fix it up.... --Skidoo 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say - comments such as "His theories are usually disregarded by scientists." are pretty broad, to say the least..! I'd love to see this page expanded and cleaned up - I've started by adding a bit more information on his career and activities in the 'biography' section.

References

This article badly needs a reference section. There are many indications of references, but they do not actually go anywhere. Rosencomet 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Visual Acuity & Psylocybin

Added citations of Fischer's research quoted by McKenna. I wasn't logged in at the time. Rosencomet 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

spam links

Hi all - I noted the spam sign on the external links section and have removed the following links as I think they come under these guidelines:

• Terence McKenna: The Last Interview double CD available at Tripzine Link to a page with no info - and the cd is out of stock!
• Magic Carpet Media - Alien Dreamtime and Strange Attractor DVDs featuring Terence McKenna Links to a general store - not even to McKenna products
• Sound Photosynthesis - Rare Terence McKenna Audio & Video store Links to a cd store with McKenna products

I thought I would make a note here as a) I am newish to editing wikipedia and want to make sure I have done it right (for example I did wonder about the link to the 'Psychedelics in the Age of Intelligent Machines - Video samples from the 1999 DVD') and b) I dont know if I should remove the spam warning. Glandmaster (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I waited a month to see if anyone would add a comment but as they havnt I have gone ahead and removed the tag. Glandmaster (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Psilocybin in relation to human evolution

I think it is quite accepted among scientists that the evolution of the ability to think abstractly, was one of primary causes which made monkeys evolve into humans.

From my vast experience of psilocybin some years ago, I think it is quite safe to say that psilocybin leads to abstract thinking.

Can somebody make an independent article at wikipedia about McKenna's theory of human evolution?

I would love to see it linked to other articles about psilocybin and evolution.--Zanthius (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In defense of the stoned ape theory

"Many find this explanation implausible, as it commits McKenna to a Lamarckian interpretation of evolution wherein acquired characteristics (e.g. an adaptave advantage resulting from consuming a hallucinogen) are assumed to be propagated genetically. This view is widely rejected in contemporary evolutionary biology."

I really don't think this is what Terence argued at all. He would have known full well that Lamarckian evolution was impossible. This seems to be such a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "trait" as to rule out the example of language or any other complex behavior. Language is an acquired behavior and will not occur in a human being that is isolated from society, and yet it's widely accepted that the changes in our vocal structures caused by a mutation in the FoxP2 gene unique to humans have greatly enhanced our ability to communicate. Language itself cannot be passed down genetically; the ability to speak, however, can be. Among other primates, there are several documented examples of behaviors such as tool-making being passed from parent to offspring. There's no reason to argue that psilocybin consumption couldn't be passed down in the same manner, and if psilocybin consumption did indeed confer a selective advantage (as McKenna argued) then it would be extraordinary if the genes that allow psilocybin to function didn't undergo any changes in our history.Scarshapedstar (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural singularity

According to leading expert Ray Kurzweil, another concept called cultural singularity (essentially cultural dissolution, or language dissolution, as in the novel Just a Couple of Days), parallels this as well.

This doesn't make much sense in its original context. One aspect of novelty theory is the cultural singularity. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mckenna Picture

We should try to find an appropriate picture of Terence for this article. I feel that it is lacking without one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.174.125 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why No Criticism?

Given that many people regard Terence McKenna's so-called theories as a lot of baseless stoned nonsense, why is there no section on criticism of his ideas? HairyDan (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. If you want to see a criticism section - create one yourself! I'm a huge fan of McKenna but I'd be more than happy to see a criticism section - as would Terence, no doubt!

Proof Reader (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And it's easy to write one, as his biggest critics were his best and closest friends. But, that's besides the point. The fact is, most (but certainly not all) of McKenna's ideas come from mainstream scientific journals. It's true that novelty theory is not scientific, but we don't have to look too hard for more accepted and related theories like the doomsday argument. Yeah, McKenna was way, way over the edge, but that's what thinking outside the box is all about. The fact is, he was first and foremost a storyteller, and he never claimed to be anything else. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

American metaphysics writers

Removed this category as it doesn't seem to fit. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First to Home Grow Psilocybin Mushrooms?

One accomplishment not mentioned in Mckenna's biography here is the fact that he was the first to successfully grow psilocybin mushrooms out of the natural environment. (I believe this to be true. If anyone has can cite evidence to refute this, please post.)Terrance brought back psilocybin spores from South America and developed a method of home cultivation while living in the Bay Area during the mid to late 1970s. This type of psilocybin cultivation has now spread across the globe. Most people who now experience psilocybin are eating mushrooms grown following Mckenna's lead. This is certainly an accomplishment worthy of recognition. 05:14, 14 August 2008 User:FuLingYu

I suppose some aspects of what you are saying are true and needs to be explored in the current article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

My preliminary changes to the lead section have been reverted by User:A dullard, and I have invited him here to discuss it. McKenna's writings and lectures highlight his direct, experiential knowledge of entheogens, not his "many speculations". It appears that A dullard is confusing this knowledge with McKenna's musings on the theoretical origins of human consciousness, which I specified in case it was unclear. The part about novelty theory is unique (he invented it) and has been criticized in many places, such as the Timewave zero article, for it's numerological basis. I would suspect that the word "strange" might be a problem, so I've removed it. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My most serious objection was indeed to the word strange, so thank you for removing it. In addition, adding "unique" is redundant at best, since it wouldn't be his theory if it wasn't unique. Finally, the statement that he was is noted for his "knowledge of the use of psychedelic, plant-based entheogens" is ambiguous (does that mean he knew how they were used, or when and by whom they were used? Because many of his theories regarding the latter are speculative, such as his assertions regarding the Dionysian Mysteries and the ancient Hindus' use of soma, are more closely related to philosophy, a field mentioned in the paragraph, than to anthropology, which is not.) I'm not going to push the matter further by initiating an edit war; I'll leave the issue to consensus. As to the question in your edit summary about whether I "even know this topic," I find it ill-founded and a bit rude: I have read both McKenna's and others' work on both novelty theory and his theories on entheogens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A dullard (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Strange. "Being definitely out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird." Fits like a glove. Claiming that history is "ending" in 2012 and that we should all be prepared for a singularity is a bit strange, don't you think? Strange might be the kindest thing one could say about it. Let's not forget that the novelty theory comes directly out of a "strange", drug-induced hallucination McKenna experienced in the Amazon. So, strange really fits. 2) Unique. Many different definitions for this word, but "highly unusual or rare but not the single instance" seems to fit perfectly when novelty theory is placed next to similar ideas. 3) Knowledge. You say this is ambiguous, but I think it is unequivocal Look at the bibliography. McKenna was known for his expertise and skills acquired through his direct experience with drugs and his understanding of ethnopharmacology. His brother, Dennis McKenna took the academic route, while Terence went straight to the people with his knowledge. For example, if you wanted to learn how to grow mushrooms, his book on the subject remains a classic, introductory text. I think you and I are talking about two different things. McKenna considered himself a philosopher in terms of Alfred North Whitehead, but he also engaged in amateur, anthropological approaches. For example, Giorgio Samorini observed what appeared to be shamanic mushroom practices in mesolithic rock paintings at Tassili n'Ajjer. McKenna wanted to collect spore samples in the area to test Samorini's theory, but the political climate of Algeria made this impossible. I personally think the novelty theory is crap, but that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I won't press the issue any further. A dullard (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

epigenetics

Currently on this wiki page: "Many find this explanation implausible, as it suggests a Lamarckian interpretation of evolution wherein acquired secondary characteristics (e.g. an adaptave advantage resulting from consuming a hallucinogen) are assumed to be propagated genetically."

That's very plausible indeed. Look at something like this: http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/205/10/2409

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24919451-661,00.html

"The scientists proved that a single sugar hit, such as eating a chocolate bar, damaged the controls regulating the genes for two weeks.

But Prof El-Osta warned that regular poor eating meant the damage would last for months or years, and the real problems caused by an unhealthy diet were deferred until later life.

Having proved the impact of high-sugar foods, the Baker IDI team is focusing on whether high-fat foods, smoking and other lifestyle factors also cause long-term damage to genetic controls, which could be passed along family bloodlines.

A poor diet could lead to very serious changes that are remembered for many months, or even years. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.190.177 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately, who ever wrote that (and kept repeatedly re-editing the article) apparently never actually studied genetics and therefore has a very simplistic view of gene regulation. Scarshapedstar (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any mention in the JEM article of evidence that the gene regulation was shown to be passed down through generations. As near as I can tell, the Herald Sun author got a little over-imaginative. Jminthorne (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I read some of what McKenna had written a few years ago, but have only the vaguest memories of that. I'm writing this strictly on what is published in this one wikipedia article. If I am reading this section of the article correctly, McKenna was saying that the ingestion of psychedelics gave earlier humans advantages in dealing with their environment and that as soon as humans stopped ingesting psychedelics regularly, then existing genetic traits that had been there all along no longer had their effects suppressed. In other words, the existing genetics were never modified, and the behavioral effects of those traits were counteracted by using psychedelics. Many would consider these traits negative, and apparently so did McKenna, so he considered it a good thing that including psychedelics in their diets helped humans suppress those traits. By no means all people would call them negative traits; there are many who consider human conflict to be essential part of human civilization. (From my own knowledge of war,I'd say that there is either no place at all for human conflict, or likely that we clearly have way too much human conflict for as long as we have any war or any violent crime. amen. And I say that as someone with an abiding love for the military art and science.) But my main point, of course, is that this section of the article presently reads not as McKenna saying that psychedelics altered genes directly and then these alterations were perpetuated in human descendants. That would be a highly controversial interpretation of genetic evolution, although it has its adherents, including in this discussion page. It reads to me as McKenna claimed we had certain more or less undesirable traits, but humans who ate the psychedelics on a regular basis were able to counteract the undesirable traits though not affect the actual genes themselves. But only as long as they maintained frequent and regular ingestion of the psychedelics, I'm presuming at a pretty low dosage level. 68.215.208.120 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time figuring out what in the article you are talking about. Would you quote some sections that you feel are inaccurate? — goethean ॐ 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user is describing the the "Stoned Ape" hypothesis of human evolution, which is in the realm of pure speculation at this point. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mckenna

/ I also would like to see the Mckenna article expanded. His work needs more representation on here. I can try to add in a little at a time, but need help!

McKenna, "a christian" writer? I've never heard him say he was Christian? Calicocat (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Botanical Dimensions

Straying a little bit from McKenna himself but- "The ethnobotanical preserve on the island of Hawaii" Botanical Dimensions set up by him and his wife could use more attention. The trouble is that information and references are scarce (Not surprisingly, I'm sure the group is trying to keep a low profile). I thought it might have disappeared until I found this recent interview with Kathleen McKenna (wife) at the World Psychedelic Forum (March 2008?) where she explains it is still being run.
youtube video of interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obzZpjdVE
World Psychedelic Forum webpage - http://www.psychedelic.info/index_2_eng.html
AerinZero (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely low profile, hence the problem. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Someone should put up a picture of Terence McKenna on the page. He is an important person and deserves a pic put up on wikipedia. Iscream22 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

2012

I've listened to perhaps 100+ hours of McKenna's audio (and I've talked to several others as well). The 2012 people have taken his Time Wave Zero idea and ran with it. In all of his talking, he talks about 2012 probably 0.5% How can we represent this in the article? I've tried -- I added the bit about millenarianism and how these zealots hijack his name. Terence really didn't emphasize predicting the apocolypse. Stressing that he did only weakens his credibility and promotes falsity.

Yes, weakened his credibility and promoted falsity. Of his own ideas. By just showing them to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I keep going to "Batman" article and keep seeing this vandalism which made me tried to restore it to its original appearance once, but keep coming back. What is going on?

No idea, but remember to breathe deeply and keep your eyes shut. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored subjects

I see nothing vague or unnecessary about a list of subjects the author is known to write and lecture on, and there is certainly no improvement in substituting something truly vague and ungrammatical such as "his ability to articulate various fields like the use of psychedelics, metaphysics, plant-based entheogens and many other ranging subjects." Rosencomet (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful. The best I can do is ask you to expand the lead, using one sentence for every linked concept you restored. Otherwise, I shouldn't have to ask you to check your calendar. It's 2010, and editing like it's 2003 is just not cool. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's way too much crap listed under stuff Mckenna is "known for" or "noted for his knowledge of". Check the biographical pages of people listed here List of people who have been called "polymaths" or here List of Renaissance men. None of those folks have as many disparate expertises listed in the lead paragraph as McKenna does. I don't have Archaic Revival in front of me, so I can't check the stuff he's "known for", but I doubt even McKenna was so self-aggrandizing as to list all of that (and even if he was, self-description isn't exactly a reliable source). The stuff he's "noted for his knowledge of" appears to cite Watkins "Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination", but novelty theory is the only thing mentioned in that source. And really, noted for his knowledge of (among others) geology and physics? I can't think of anything he has to say about geology, and the only physics related thing I can think of is his completely inaccurate bullshit discussion of electron spin resonance in True Hallucinations. If you talk to real, professional "philosophers", "art historians" and "ethnobotanists", none of them would recognize McKenna as an important figure in their fields. I'm sure there are hundreds of people with biographies on Wikipedia who would self describe as "feminists", "environmentalists" or "skeptics" (heck, I'd label myself with those terms), but if they haven't contributed anything significant to those viewpoints, it's not worth noting on their biographies. Listing all of this stuff makes McKenna sound way more important than he actually was. This isn't a neutral article.21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk)

Novelty Theory Original Research

Somebody is making tons of edits to the Novelty Theory section, adding all kinds of Original Research. This is inappropriate. To single out a particularly egregious section:

"According to McKenna, the final period of the universe's informational evolution began on 6 August 1945 and will end with an informational singularity by 22 December 2012: 14 February 1946: the day of the unveiling of the first electronic general-purpose computer (ENIAC), regarded as the birth of the Information Age.[21][22] In 2005, information was doubling every 36 months. Source In June 2008, information was doubling every 11 months. Source On 4 August 2010, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said: "Every two days now we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003." Source By the end of 2010, information will be doubling every 11 hours. Source"

As far as I'm aware, McKenna never identified the event on 22 December 2012 specifically as "an informational singularity". He was pretty careful not to say anything specific about what might occur; an informational singularity is only one possibility, but he didn't clearly say that's what would happen. All this stuff about the rate at which information doubles is WP:OR; McKenna was dead by 2005, so clearly he couldn't have cited these figures in making a case for an informational singularity (and again, he never tried to make a case for soemthing as specific as an informational singularity)192.104.39.2 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at it, agree regarding the OR. Take a look and see. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the "Novelty theory" section needs a serious rework. Perhaps just revert it back to before the edits by 91.122.10.93? The version from Oct 3rd 2010 (diff) was much more encyclopedic than what's presently in the article. --Xtraeme (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming to the article as someone familiar with McKenna only from reading The Invisible Landscape years ago, I find the summary of his theories here somewhat opaque. In particular, how did McKenna believe the mere proliferation of information enabled by the internet age would contribute to an evolutionary jump for the human race? I.e., information and wisdom (knowing what to do with information) are not the same thing.98.190.221.2 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer changing the article

Banned user User:Antichristos has made many changes to this article via sockpuppets. You may wish to police that user's contributions; it seems that he has added nonsense to a great many other articles. Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable about this subject so I must leave it to you to edit it back into shape.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher

I see from the archives that the rather loose application of the term 'philosopher', properly used for professional philosophers in academia rather than as a vague catch-all for a 'thinker', to McKenna was previously discussed, and removed in favour of calling him a writer. However it seems to have been added back. I think there would need to be a good citation for calling him a philosopher - e.g. from an encyclopedia or journal of philosophy. Note the high standard required in the case of Ayn Rand (see her talk page). Hence I've removed it. Ben Finn (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The philosopher is back again, without a reference. I also question very much to call this man a Researcher. Did he publish any research (scientific method) in his field prior of becoming a crank? I'm not removing it myself due to semi-protection and previous revisions, don't want to start an edit war. 206.248.179.44 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

McKenna wasn't a "crank". He was always quite respectable in the scientific field (if you don't know this then I question your scientific understanding). Among the many scientists who have evidently respected him and had been influenced by him are Dr. Alexander Shulgin, Dr. Dennis McKenna (his brother), Jonathan Ott, Dr. Ralph Metzner, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. Ralph Abraham, and many, many others- even though they all knew, accepted, and many times valued that McKenna's methods were less academically orthodox and more based on self-experimentation. McKenna was after all scientifically trained, even if he later preferred to pursue personal experiences rather than a doctorate degree and the chance to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals. In regards to regarding certain people as non-"philosophers", only because they own no PhD in philosophy, I am not sure if this would be wise- The "philosopher" occupation, with the literal meaning of the word (lover of wisdom), has been an occupation that existed very long before the creation of universities that offer PhDs in philosophy. Should Socrates not be regarded as a philosopher because that he didn't own a PhD in philosophy? That being said, I'm quite positive that McKenna himself wouldn't mind not having the "honor" to be called a "researcher" and categorised as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia. But really, as a person, those are the things that he was the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He was an ethnobotanist, if you must know. Get over it, he was a legitimate scientist/researcher.

Psychonaut25 8:08 PM EST, 28 June 2011

Reference 17

Footnote 17 leads to example.com and not to Stoned Ape theory part one of two. What should be done and how do I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.51.20 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You were right, it should be fine now Wawawemn (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Terence McKenna was a writer/speaker and celebrity, mainly known as a charismatic inspirational icon -- but only to a small, enthusiastic fan base, some of whom actively promote him as a philosopher, researcher, theorizer, etc. etc.

As with 'philosopher' (remarked upon above by Ben Finn, Nov 2010): the term 'researcher' (first sentence) is misapplied and inaccurate. TM conducted no scientific research, had no academic or disciplinary publications. His articles and books are purely popular publications, often represented as research (or philosophy etc.) by his fans. However, no reference to his theories appear in technical literature from any of the disciplines invoked in his theorizing. For example, Stoned Apes no more figures as a genuine theory in paleoanthropology, paleontology, or evolution (etc) than does Scientific Creationism.

TM did 'reference' Fischer and Hill et alia (FOOD OF THE GODS, 1992, 25-25), to claim psilocybin enhances visual acuity ('at low doses'). But contrary to wording in the article, this does not 'echo' Fisher, Hill [sic] et al. That their research reported this is untrue, as I found reading their work. Hill has confirmed to me, they did not test for "visual acuity;" any such interpretation is "completely spurious" (email from R. Hill, Aug 18, 2010).

Bias is also evident in striking absence of citations to definitive criticisms. The most famous is 'the Watkins Objection' to 'novelty theory' AKA 'time wave zero' (www.realitysandwich.com/watkins_objection), and it has been critically affirmed in various competent reviews. There are various others (google "Concerning Stoned Apes" for a bioscience phd's comment on it).

I find lack of citation to significant criticisms, along with specious attributions such as "philosopher" and "researcher" etc. (in absence of contributions to such fields) -- reflects a major NPOV problem in this article.

Maxwellrockatansky (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Maxwellrockatansky June 20, 2011

(Directed at Ben Finn) Terence was an ethnobotanist (and thus a researcher, whether or not any of his research is referenced by any other scientists is irrelevant; he did research in the field of botany, thus he was a researcher) and this is easily figured out by a few moments worth of research.

Psychonaut25 8:12 PM EST, 28 June 2011

(Directed at Maxwellrockatansky and others concerned):

In regards to what I believe is an overemphasis on this Discussion page on the value of "a PhD degree" that McKenna doesn't own, please remember that a PhD is not a "universal proof of authority": if, for example, you have a PhD in forestry, this won't necessarily make you more respected to non-PhD people who have grown up living in forests, and it doesn't necessarily make you have more real-life knowledge than them. Valuing the ideas of a person who doesn't own a PhD can only seem threatening to certain people owing or pursuing a PhD who think they should be the only ones allowed to do the talking and that having non-PhDs talk will somehow reduce their "importance".

I have found the "bioscience phd" you refer to, Brian Aker's (which, if I'm not mistaken, is you) "take" on McKenna's theories. Though I don't have the free time to read all of it, being that it seems unsubstantial for my personal taste, it seems to me to be not only full of misinformation, but is maliciously so. Making a random Google search of "Brian Aker" I have found his anti-McKenna erroneous opinions spread in more than one places (mainly on Amazon.com where he replies to reviewers of Food of the Gods in his attempt to "clear things up"). Again I hadn't had the time to read them all but statements like

I think Tmac may have been confident it would be difficult for anyone in his fairly uneducated, wildly enthusiastic audience, to rat him out on this [referring to McKenna's reference to Fischer et al 's work]

make me feel assured that it won't be a great loss on my education.

To be honest, it seems like the image that Brian seems to pursue of the "genius PhD who debunked McKenna" (using my own words) is actually one's cheap trick to climb the ladder of authoritativeness by personally attacking -with erroneous accusations- a dead, highly respectable researcher; and Brian's PhD or use of "intellectual" language isn't enough to hide this.

Now about your opinions:

1] You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia by adding a criticism on the "Timewave Zero" theory -obviously this will require more work from you than just throwing us the name "Watkins"- you will need to read his whole article and then summarise it correctly in your own words. I think Watkins' objection is an interested one, although not so much an attack against McKenna as you make it seem: McKenna himself linked to it on his own website, and he even wrote an introduction to it saying it's "the strongest and most interesting critique of the Timewave". Of course, I think we should add this criticism, but to maintain a neutral POV we should also add Sheliak's analysis of Watkins' implications and how he shows that they don't actually impose a threat to the Timewave Zero or the Novelty theory.

2] Regarding Fischer et al 's work: Again, you are welcome to add to the article any cited -and serious- criticism (including ones you wrote your own). Of course, I don't think Brian's article on “realitysandwich” is a serious one (though I'm not saying you shouldn't cite it), and I will explain my reasons:

- McKenna only cited a specific one of Fischer's articles (together with his personal communication with him); so a criticism on McKenna's citation should focus on that particular work by Fischer. In addition, McKenna never said that Fischer et al said anything about evolutionary advantage; as Brian implies in his "criticism".

- The article McKenna cites by Fischer is called "Psilocybin-Induced Contraction of Nearby Visual Space". Let me cite two parts from his paper that you can use as keys to understanding McKenna's reference to the paper: "In fact, fourteen of our sixteen subjects showed this drug-induced progression of concavity toward flatness" (here it was talking about the Apparent Fronto-Parallel Plane tests they made). And elsewhere "[...]our subjects did exhibit a psilocybin-induced reduction in concavity of the AFP, these results can be interpreted as a contraction or closing-in of nearby visual space". Being that McKenna was targeting the general reader, and not scientists, he generalised (a bit unscientifically perhaps) their findings as "improved visual acuity". The fact that you went through the trouble of asking one of its writers if they were actually "testing for visual acuity" (when you could easily find the article on the web and go through it yourself) certifies that the actual findings of the article are not easily understood by just anyone (or, of course, that you didn't bother trying to understand them). That the writers didn't use this exact wording ("visual acuity") is not a hidden secret that one needs to expose (one can just use the "Find" tool in a pdf reader to find that out). Regarding Hill's answer, my guesses would be that you either misinterpreted his reply, or he misunderstood which article was the one you were talking about (it was 40 years ago and they probably wrote many other articles by then), or being that he is quite specialised in the scientific field of vision, such a oversimplification as the one McKenna made wouldn't make much sense to him (which doesn't mean that McKenna's was "wrong"). (Here I'm sure that if you could post the whole correspondence it would help us to find the answer). Wawawemn (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Psychonaut25, 29 June 2011

The first sentence of the first section of the page for Terence McKenna states McKenna "was an American researcher, philosopher, speaker, spiritual teacher and writer on many subjects." This is largely true, however McKenna was Irish-American, not just American. I am requesting that this be changed simply to say "Irish-American" rather than "American".

As a reference, following is an excerpt from his book True Hallucinations (1993)

"I realized that my innate Irish ability to rave had been turbo-charged by years of psilocybin mushroom use. Aided by my devotion to psilocybin and the experiment at La Chorrera I had apparently evolved into a sort of mouthpiece for the incarnate Logos. I could talk to small groups of people with what appeared to be electrifying effect about the peculiarly transcendental matters that you will read about in these pages. It was as though my ordinary, rather humdrum personality had simply been turned off and speaking through me was the voice of another, a voice that was steady, unhesitating, and articulate - a voice seeking to inform others about the power and promise of psychedelic dimensions."

If further references are required for a minor change such a this, please let me know. I will do my best to get ahold of the proper information. The issue, in this case, is that being that my reference is out of one of his own books, I cannot provide a link to view the text itself, rather I can just type it up from the copy of True Hallucinations I hold here in my hand as I type...I have also searched the Reliable Sources page in order to try to learn how to properly cite information from books (I am rather new to this; not to the site Wikipedia itself, which I have used for some time, but to editing pages themselves, which I have done only in a minor manner prior to the past couple of weeks...however I am very, very familiar with Terence McKenna and I thought I could be of some good use for this page) however I was unable to find this information on that page.

Anyhow, if somebody would like further references or would like to tell me how to properly reference information from a book, I would be happy to do so. Please let me know. Otherwise, could we change the page to say "Irish-American" instead of "American"?

Psychonaut25 8:33 PM EST, 28 June 2011

Not done: You should be able to make this edit yourself. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DONE, thanks - By the way, if you know more stuff about McKenna please consider advancing your editing skills- this page could use a lot of repairing Wawawemn (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, I couldn't do it myself, because the page was locked (besides, isn't it impossible to even make an edit request if a page is not locked? I may be wrong...but that's what I thought.). Anyhow, thanks Wawawemn (indeed I do know quite a bit about McKenna, so I will see what I can do!)

-Psychonaut25 6:21 AM EST, 12 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from Maxwellrockatansky, 11 July 2011

Please add

to top of article. NPOV issue (talk page) is retorted to inappropriately/unreasonably (contentious, adversarial, unverifiable, etc etc) by two editors (sockpuppetry? -- previously cited problem for this article)

Maxwellrockatansky (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Maxwellrockatansky, if you suspect Sock puppetry you should consult Wikipedia's guide on handling this. There are ways by which this can be investigated.

Because I've read the article and can't find a POV issue anywhere, I would suggest either of the following three options, instead of tagging the article as "disputed NPOV":

1] Maxwellrockatansky waits until s/he becomes an autoconfirmed user and then adds a "criticism" section to the article, of course if s/he has something valid and cited to say.

2] Maxwellrockatansky lets us know on this talk page why s/he thinks this article is POV; and if these reasons are valid and cited, a volunteer autoconfirmed user can add the "criticism" section for him/her.

3] Someone else who has some valid/cited information against Terence McKenna's ideas (which I think is Maxwellrockatansky's issue) makes a "criticism" section.

In my opinion adding a disputed NPOV tag to the article just because someone (or even some people) disagrees with the concepts of the person for which the article is written, is not very constructive; it would only create a mess for nothing. Wawawemn (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Since I am certainly no expert on this subject there should be some proof offered that this page is NPOV before adding the tag for it. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pat5star, 17 July 2011

Hi. I was just reading this article when I noticed a grammar error in the 4th paragraph of 'Studying and Traveling'. It currently reads "During his studies, he would be also be developing techniques for cultivating the psilocybin mushrooms together with Dennis.". At minimum, I would suggest the first 'be' be removed but even then the sentence does not flow nicely. I would offer a better suggestion but I don't know enough (yet) about the subject to do so. Eg. Did he develop techniques as in completed them or did he begin his developing techniques then, and continued onward for a period of time or even until his death? Thank you to whoever reads this and makes the necessary correction.

Pat5star (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to the singularity theory and Extropianism

I think links to this should be mentioned as part of what McKenna believed in. He clearly advocated for the ideas that technology, specifically computers, nanotechnolgy and biotechnology will create a future that is basically utopian. He described the Earth as an embryo that will by the means of human technology gain sentience and that there will be some kind of birth when humans and their machines will go into the cosmos. He implies that the present ecological disasters are unfortunate but maybe necessary byproducts of this enlightenment (kind of like pain during a birth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.78.23 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup

This article is tagged as "cleanup needed" from 2010. I think as of today it must have been improved quite a bit, though there is still a section that I think is messy, which is the "Novelty theory" one.

I will try to improve this section as soon as I find the time, but in the meantime, if someone has the knowledge, please consider helping me on this task. Thanks, Wawawemn (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I realised that the Novelty theory section should better be deleted altogether, until someone rewrites it in a better way.

It seems like it contains no actual explanation of McKenna's ideas on the matter (except from some random bits here and there), :lots of quotations of McKenna that don't say much, and several "scientific" explanations that are not by McKenna and could be :considered possibly-unrelated. I think such badly-written things could possibly become the source of some general paranoia against :the McKenna article, and raise doubt towards the validity of the whole article.

The Novelty theory is much richer than this article makes it seem, so there's plenty of room for improvement.

Wawawemn (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wawawemn. Novelty Thoery is a stable of McKenna's philosophy. To delete it entirely from this article is a mistake, least I think so. I would have just cut out bad sections and tagged it with

to encourage other editors to find better citations and rewrite it. But perhaps your correct in it being too poor quality and misguiding readers. Jason (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, TBMforeverNowhere. You have a point, but the article was TOO badly-written and I didn't have a lot of time to repair it adequately. If you want you can put it back up, but I think the best would be if we write it from the beginning, or if we find a previous version of it that is better (I believe there used to be a good version some time ago, though it lacked citations). I'll try to think about it some more as soon as I find some free time...in the meantime feel free to try any idea you might have regarding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wawawemn, I trust your judgement. It's probably better to omit it then, if its horribly written with no citations. I'll try to contribute to this article later too when I find time, right now im focused on some other articles. But great work, keep it up. Jason (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Delerium2k12, 16 August 2011

Under 'Studying and traveling', second paragraph, sentence 'He was forced to move to avoid capture by the Interpol.' Please remove 'the' before 'Interpol'. It's simply Interpol. kthxbai

Delerium2k12 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationality/Ethnicity

The Page says Terence is/was an American researcher, philosopher, speaker, spiritual teacher and writer on many subjects. This is partially true, but it would be more accurate to state that he was an Irish-American researcher, philosopher, etc. Can somebody please fix this? Plus, I mean, come on...you can see it in his face. He's obviously of Irish descent.

As a reference, following is an excerpt from his book True Hallucinations (1993)

"I realized that my innate Irish ability to rave had been turbo-charged by years of psilocybin mushroom use. Aided by my devotion to psilocybin and the experiment at La Chorrera I had apparently evolved into a sort of mouthpiece for the incarnate Logos. I could talk to small groups of people with what appeared to be electrifying effect about the peculiarly transcendental matters that you will read about in these pages. It was as though my ordinary, rather humdrum personality had simply been turned off and speaking through me was the voice of another, a voice that was steady, unhesitating, and articulate - a voice seeking to inform others about the power and promise of psychedelic dimensions."

Psychonaut25 8:19 PM EST, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a guideline that states only nationality is to be mentioned in the lead sentence, and that ethnicity should not be mentioned there. He was born in the US and should be described only as American in the first sentence. Ethnicity is generally described in the early life section. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet, you didn't add it to the early-life section. I'm going to work on an "encyclopedic" sentence to add to that section later today, but, if you or someone else can create one (probably better than I can) then be my guest; in fact, feel encouraged. It is, after all, only the truth.

Psychonaut25 4:58 PM EST, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual teacher?

I'm deleting 'spiritual teacher' from the first sentence description. While his fans may draw 'spiritual' insight from his teachings, I don't think this is a defining characterization. In fact he was quite a skeptic on such matters. I've learned things about biology from Terence but that doesn't make him a biologist. If others want to comment, here's a space to do so. PYRSMIS 09:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, although technically he was a biologist (specifically a botanist, a type of biology). I only agree with you because Terence was a psychedelic/psychonautical teacher, not a spiritual one, and he actually spoke of this. He said many times that he didn't think psychedelics were particularly spiritual, as opposed to simply something worth exploring.

Psychonaut25 5:01 PM EST, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.103.39 (talk)

I disagree. T.M is and was a spiritual teacher par excellence. Besides, spiritual teaching is not something you can be "skeptic" of, since it's not a specific belief system. Is more like a tone, or intention. Many people consider him as such, and many of his "teachings" are spiritual in nature. He may use "biology" or chaos theory, or psychedelic insights and other parallel, but the essence of many of his teaching IS spiritual enlightenment and awakening, of the individual and society. Since there are no academic degrees in spirituality teaching (another institution he was loudly skeptic of it's nature), why shunt his natural and rightful title.--Namaste@^? 11:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see where you're coming from. I too, personally, glean enormous spiritual insight from McKenna's ideas. But it still sounds more like a description of our personal reception and interpretation of his philosophy, rather than an encyclopedic rendering of how he specifically framed his ideas. Now if there were a section in this article on his 'spiritual teachings' I'd happily yield. There isn't currently such a section and I have to admit I can hardly imagine there being one with a header like that. In fact, the only other reference to 'spiritual' in this article says "He remained opposed to most forms of organized religion or guru-based forms of spiritual awakening." Lord knows he used a lot of words to describe what he was doing, but I don't recall the language of 'spiritual teaching' ever being among them. If we have any recourse as to what 'spiritual teacher' means, we have only to look it up in Wikipedia and find that it points to Index of religious honorifics and titles, i.e. guru, roshi, swami, padre, etc. -- in other words, the very style of teaching that McKenna had contempt for. PYRSMIS 10:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Terence Mckenna Omnibus 2012

<Please add 'The Terence McKenna OmniBus 2012' to Discography section of Terence Mckenna page> SchwannCybershaman (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC) SchwannCybershaman (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchwannCybershaman (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

<Please add 'Terence McKenna & Zuvuya - Dream Matrix Telemetry (1993)' to Discography section of Terence Mckenna page> Thestarswillalwaysbethere... (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Novelty Theory: Final3211

@Final3211 could you please consult the guidelines relating to usable sources, WP:RS, and take a look at WP:MOS. There is a standard procedure for formatting articles, this includes all referencing, linking, quoting etc.

I have attempted to assist you here in making the content more presentable, by removing unusable sources and formatting cites correctly, but it appears you would only like to edit the article using the method you see fit.

Can you please discuss your methodology here. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The article must convey information in the most efficient way possible. The sole purpose of rules is to assist in reaching this goal. If rules do not serve this goal, they can be safely discarded together with those who misapply them.—Final3211 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request -- Timewave Zero software screenshot

In the "Novelty Theory" section there is a screenshot of version 4.30 of the timewave zero software. I am the author of all versions of this software (that is, all versions for DOS/Windows) up to and including the latest version, 7.10. The screenshot displayed is of a very old version, c. 1990. It was placed in the public domain by WP editor Clarknova, who neither requested permission from me to do so (as required, since this is an item derived from a copyrighted work, namely the software itself) nor was Clarknova ever granted permission to do so. Moreover, he omitted to acknowledge the author of the software.

I request this screenshot to be replaced by a screenshot of the latest version, which can be obtained from my website at the following URL: http://www.fractal-timewave.com/screenshot2.png

Details as follows:
Description
English: Screenshot of the latest version of the Timewave Zero software (written by Peter Meyer) showing the timewave for the 25 years preceding a zero date of December 21, 2012. Descents of the timewave correspond to an increase in novelty and ascents to a decrease in novelty (or an increase in habit or routine).
Date 2013-03-23
Source The 'Fractal Time' software, version 7.10
Author Peter Meyer
Permission
(Reusing this file)
Released into the public domain by the author of the software.

I note also that the "Novelty Theory" section begins: "McKenna expressed 'novelty' in a computer program ..." The use of the term "expressed" is curious, especially since Terence McKenna was not himself a computer programmer. It would be in accord with the facts to say: "McKenna often illustrated his theory by reference to a computer program written by his collaborater Peter Meyer." I also request that this change be made to acknowledge my authorship of this software. The history of the timewave zero software (in its various forms) is described in the article "History of the Timewave Zero Software" at http://www.fractal-timewave.com/articles/hist.html

There is a wealth of information concerning the theory itself (not just the software) on my website at http://www.fractal-timewave.com

Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Done -- DaveSeidel (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

Add the website MckennaForum http://MckennaForum.com To the external links

The MckennaForum is a fan site and forum for Terence Mckenna related dialogue and discourse.

Funnyjones (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Fan forums are on the list of external links to be avoided. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The McKenna Forum (inaccurately described by Funnyjones) is not a "fan site", since it does not consist mostly of expressions of uncritical admiration by fans, and there are many postings which take issue with what McKenna said in his talks and books. Most of the contributors (who cannot be described as "fans") write intelligently on diverse McKenna-related topics and this Forum is well worth visiting by anyone interested in McKenna's thought. A more direct link to the Forum is
http://mckennaforum.com/forum/mckenna-forum-group1/terence-mckenna-forum-forum24/
Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Funnyjones was careless and mistaken in describing the McKenna Forum as "a fan site". It's not. It's a good source for discussion of McKenna's ideas. So why is every WP editor afraid to link to it? Fear of what other editors will say? A desire to suppress ideas that are not "mainstream"? Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a post, by one HerbalYogist (April 30, 2013), illustrating the sort of thing that WP editors do not wish to draw attention to by linking to the McKenna Forum:

Terence tried all of his life to make his "radical ideas" -mainstream or scientific. He put all of his experiences under the empirical method that all scientists use. I think the problem was that he was finding ways of doing this very well... he just simply did not have enough time and in the end he probably realized it wasn't "time," but was just "the way it was." The dogmatic world of materialistic science had not yet changed enough....but Rupert Sheldrake currently is doing an excellent job right now of busting science's bubble of materiality...and if it is busted good enough I believe Mckenna's theories will be re-ignited and will re-emerge and even now there are several people doing this... and in a few years things will look much different. ... The intelligence level is there now... we just need people ACTUALLY experimenting...and then putting that into theory with a good amount of evidence to support the theories... http://mckennaforum.com/forum/mckenna-forum-group1/terence-mckenna-forum-forum24/need-input-to-help-explain-mckennas-ideas-thread400.0/#postid-4911
Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Akersbp (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request -- Replacement of intro picture of TMcK

The photo of Terence McKenna at the top of the page makes him look like some kind of stoned idiot. This is disrespectful. And it may have the effect of biasing anyone who is not familiar with McKenna's ideas against taking him seriously. He was a serious thinker, as can be seen from the three videos made by Thinking Allowed (see http://www.thinkingallowed.com/2tmckenna.html). I request that the present photo be replaced by an image from one of the TA videos, which image can be downloaded from http://www.fractal-timewave.com/_temp/terencemckenna-thinkingallowed.jpg I contacted Thinking Allowed to request permission for this image to be used in the WP article. Arthur Bloch at TA replied on April 11: "You have our permission to use the referenced photo for the Wikipedia article. If a photo credit is allowed, it should say: Photo: Thinking Allowed." So please replace the picture. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to your proposal, Peter. On the current image, which is artistically stylish by itself, Terence McKenna is wisely ironic and blissful in his beatific vision. The image you have suggested is of much lower quality in all respects. Omnipater (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether the image is "artistically stylish" is irrelevant. This is a photo of Terence, not some "artistically stylish" trees in the background. What you see as "wisely ironic and blissful" others will see as a picture of a stoned idiot, and if they are not already admirers of Terence's thought that will be enough to prejudice them and put them off taking him seriously. The image I have suggested, from one of the 'Thinking Allowed' videos, may not be (as you'd like) "artistically stylish", but it portrays him as someone presenting serious ideas worth taking seriously. The present image is insulting in that it portrays Terence as some whacked-out hangover from the stoned '60s lost in some dreamy haze, and who would take seriously what such a person had to say? Thus it violates WP's NPOV guidelines, and at the very least should be removed. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the permission you have from Thinking Allowed is inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes - the image needs to be under a free licence. If you can get it under a free licence, then please upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and it will then be available for use here. --Zundark (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Block wrote to me (again) saying: "Thinking Allowed agrees to provide a license for free use of the image:
http://www.fractal-timewave.com/_temp/terencemckenna-thinkingallowed.jpg
Arthur Bloch, Owner, Producer, Thinking Allowed"
I could upload it to Wikipedia Commons but it would not be accepted without receipt by WP of an email from Arthur providing one of WP's many acceptable 'free-user' licenses, and presumably Arthur sees no reason to spend his time trying to understand WP's requirements for providing such a license. And after such an email is sent it apparently takes 100 days or more for it to be approved by WP. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

fact is, he was a bit of stoner, and there is nothing wrong with that, amongst other things, he used bucket loads of psychedelics in his lifetime, and offered innumerable humorous accounts of his activities, the current image seems fitting. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"The current image seems fitting" if it is the intent of the editors of WP to portray Terence's primary message as: "Take lots of psychedelics." Is that the intent? I note that under "Thought" the article mentions only his 'Stoned Ape' theory (I don't recall that he ever used this term to describe what he was saying -- can WP justify the use of the term?) and 'Timewave Zero', but fails to consider Terence's contributions as a critic of modern society and modern science. His primary contribution was to draw attention to the fact that the use of DMT (even just one time, if done right) reveals a world of independently-existing intelligent entities which is quite other than the physical world, and that only by ignoring the former can modern science claim to be the sole authority on what is real (with all the pernicious social consequences of that claim). This article about Terence McKenna does him a great disservice by portraying him merely as a colorful character who took lots of psychedelics and elaborated weird theories which shouldn't be taken seriously. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

if you have WP:RS sources that support the position you are offering here, by all means, use them to enhance the article, but it's misleading to suggest that we should be presenting McKenna as a hard scientist. You should probably read WP:fringe also. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, so I can't modify it. I have said nothing to suggest that WP "should be presenting McKenna as a hard scientist" so why did you insinuate that I was doing so? Terence would have found laughable the idea of himself as "a hard scientist". As for "fringe theories", WP say: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." So at the time of Galileo the Copernican heliocentric theory was a "fringe theory" and if WP had existed then then some editors would no doubt have described Galileo as a crackpot. As to sources which support my claim that the WP article ignores what was most important in Terence's thought, listen to his many talks and read his books. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

well, if you are advancing the claim that McKenna should be considered on par with Galileo and Copernicus it's a matter of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The primary issue here is that McKenna is not widely acknowledged as someone who has seriously contributed to the advancement of human knowledge. Perhaps that will change, in time, but right now, it is not the case, and he is instead most notable for his use of, and writings about, entheogens. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)