Talk:Terence McKenna/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

sub-headings

Stjohn1970 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry to say, the last paragraph under the heading "stoned apes" is criticism of his theory, and so should go under a separate heading.

Independent sources for "Stoned Ape"

The "Stoned Ape" section has a lot of primary sources; material on Wikipedia about a fringe theory needs to be based upon secondary, independent sources. (This is an issue throughout the article, but let's look at Stoned Ape for now.) What are the sources we have for Stoned Ape? Several sources look questionable, for instance the book published by "Dreamflesh", which may be a vanity press or close to it. There is The Beauty of the Primitive by Oxford University Press, though McKenna's views on human evolution are only mentioned briefly.

The article also needs to cover the mainstream reception of Stoned Ape, and the only thing I see along these lines is possibly the Akers blog post. Per WP:PARITY this may be OK, but it's a last resort when no other criticism can be found. The Woolfe article doesn't appear to even meet WP:PARITY.

So it seems to me that the Stoned Ape material needs to be streamlined using WP:FRIND sources, taking the best ones available and (for lack of something better) the Akers post for mainstream reception. Manul ~ talk 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Manul you state "The "Stoned Ape" section has a lot of primary sources; material on Wikipedia about a fringe theory needs to be based upon secondary, independent sources."

This is simply not accurate (nor is it accurate for the rest of the article). The stoned ape section is built around the following reliable secondary independent sources:

Letcher, Andy (2007). "14.The Elf-Clowns of Hyperspace". Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom. Harper Perennial.

Mulvihill, Tom. "Eight things you didn't know about magic mushrooms". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited.

Terence McKenna; Promoter of psychedelic drug use". Los Angeles Times. April 7, 2000

Jacobson, Mark (June 1992). "Terence McKenna the brave prophet of The next psychedelic revolution, or is his cosmic egg just a little bit cracked?". Esquire

Dery, Mark (2001) [1996]. "Terence McKenna: The inner elf". 21•C Magazine

Gyrus (2009). "Appendix II: The Stoned Ape Hypothesis". War and the Noble Savage: A Critical Inquiry Into Recent Accounts of Violence Amongst Uncivilized Peoples. London: Dreamflesh

Brown, David Jay; Novick, Rebecca McClen, eds. (1993). "Mushrooms, Elves And Magic". Mavericks of the Mind: Conversations for the New Millennium. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press

Pinchbeck, Daniel (2003). Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. Broadway Books

Znamenski, Andrei A. (2007). The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and Western Imagination. Oxford University Press.

Horgan, John. "Was psychedelic guru Terence McKenna goofing about 2012 prophecy?" (blog). Scientific American.

Davis, Erik (May 2000). "Terence McKenna's last trip". Wired

The minor use of primary sources suppliment the secondary ones and I would think are justified as per WP:PRIMARY, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:ABOUTSELF. As for the Gyrus source it is only used as a solitary source for 2 of the criticisms at the end of the section, everywhere else it is used the points are also covered by other sources. By all means lets remove the one sentence sourced from Woolfe's blog.

It is also worth bearing in mind that this is a biographical article about McKenna's life and views which should aim to give the reader a clear and thorough enough overview of him as covered in reliable sources as per WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. Not an independent article on a specific theory of his or an inclusion of say McKenna's views on a wikipedia article about evolution.

Some Mainstream reception from the 'Critical reception' section of the wiki article its self: "some praised his "scholarly" approach. Biologist Richard Evans Schultes, of Harvard University, wrote in American Scientist in a 1993 review of McKenna's book Food of the Gods, that it was; "a masterpiece of research and writing" and that it "should be read by every specialist working in the multifarious fields involved with the use of psychoactive drugs." Concluding that "It is, without question, destined to play a major role in our future considerations of the role of the ancient use of psychoactive drugs, the historical shaping of our modern concerns about drugs and perhaps about man's desire for escape from reality with drugs."[89]

John Horgan in a 2012 blog post for Scientific American also commented that, Food of the Gods was "a rigorous argument...that mind-expanding plants and fungi catalyzed the transformation of our brutish ancestors into cultured modern humans."[8]"

Screamliner (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Screamliner, would you mind saving me some time by pointing out which sources are from experts in the relevant field, such as anthropologists, who are specifically evaluating the Stoned Ape hypothesis? Thanks, Manul ~ talk 15:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

For reference - viz. "anthropologists who are specifically evaluating the Stoned Ape hypothesis" - no such hypothesis figures in anthropology (or other disciplines as relate, e.g. evolutionary biology) - as anyone can discover, by consulting basic sources and texts therein.

A false and misleading claim that there is too such a 'hypothesis' is promulgated - only outside authentic literature sources in anthropology (and biology, etc). One must look in other type lit (such as sources listed above) - to learn about McKenna's 'evolutionary theorizing' as it pretended to be - as if it were some 'covered up' hypothesis - of which science is frightened, because it'd sensationally 'force' a revision of 'everything.' Such storyline is staked out on fraudulent ground - such as deliberate, knowing and willful falsification of sources upon which 'talking points' of deception - are pinned. And the story is to be defended no matter what, by those 'inspired' to its cause - as above, the screamlined attempt to find a passing reference in Fischer et al's "Contraction of Nearby Visual Space" - to the phrase 'visual acuity' - as if somehow substantiating the fabricated finding McKenna pinned on that research - of 'psilocybin enhances visual acuity' - in 'small dose' - complete with preposterously screamlined obfuscation of psilocybin's dosage range - desperately trying to shoehorn the Fischer study into compliance with McKenna's lies about it - and those who've inherited the wind, taken it on as their own glorious cause to perpetrate further.

As author of CONCERNING TERENCE MCKENNA'S STONED APES - I'm not just a PhD biologist, specialized in plants and fungi. I'm also - an anthropologist and got my first grad degree in it (Masters) at Western Michigan University. I completed my doctoral coursework in it at Univ of FL.

And there is to my knowledge no other anthropologist who has ever conducted any significant investigative research assessment of stoned apes - other than myself. Putting aside sources listed above, pre-dating my publication on it - here's a source more recent (and up to date, shall we say) than something like that 2009 Appendix by Gyrus, or other sources (as postured above) - quote, from HEADS: A BIOGRAPHY OF PSYCHEDELIC AMERICA by J. Jarnow (2016):

< “Whether the mushroom comes from outer space or not ... when a person takes small amounts of psilocybin their visual acuity improves. ... The presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack-hunting primates caused the individuals that were ingesting the psilocybin to have increased visual acuity.” It is wonderful “psychedelic blarney,” as HIGH FRONTIERS layout visionary (and McKenna associate) Lord Nose puts it, but it belies an accurate understanding of evolution. And, as writer Brian Akers and others point out much later, it misrepresents Fischer and Hill and team’s original study regarding mushrooms and visual acuity. >

But that reflects current understanding not outmoded. As informed since Mar 28, 2011 - Reality Sandwich date of publication, my article on stoned apes. It unmasked for the first time how severely false its foundations are - no matter how you slice it - from findings in research egregiously falsified and fraudulently cited as supposed evidential basis for it - to a profound lack of theoretical coherence (a la natural selection). Sources like Gyrus, published prior to the 'inconvenient truth' being aired - go a long way to show the extent to which those who 'know the name' (McKenna) simply believed whatever he claimed 'scientists discovered' - reflects vividly, as thru a glass darkly. For example, from Gyrus Appendix on Stoned Apes, 2009 - here are two richly illustrative quotes that, taken together like bookends - nicely illustrate the degree to which McKenna's disinfo established itself as 'fact' in uncritical minds - with the effect of conjuring the 'reality' of a theory, by pure moonbeam-in-jar bs methods of disinfo he specialized in:

Page 63: "Low doses of psilocybin HAVE BEEN SHOWN to enhance visual acuity, an undoubted boon for hunters" - caps added for emphasis, nothing of the sort has been 'shown' - Gyrus not only parroting the false 'fact' but even ratifying McKenna's cluelessly pseudoscientific line of 'evolutionary reasoning' ...

Page 66 (the 'logical conclusion' thus): "While I have reservations about McKenna's speculations, I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE CLOSE THE DOOR ON IT"

Voila, the exact objective of evolutionary pseudoscience, to stake out its claim on whatever subject matter by exploiting anyone who doesn't care or doesn't bother to check basic facts (like - lit sources cited) - nor have any significant education in evolutionary biology, e.g. about things like - natural selection.

A hypothesis or theory requires data or evidence however slight, to rest upon, as even McKenna apparently couldn't deny. Stoned apes flunks that very defining criterion - its no hypothesis only an incredible simulation quite unconvincing - because it has no shred of data to start from - nor anywhere it can go. No wonder McKenna felt compelled to concoct 'evidence' in the form or 'findings by Fischer et al.' - as a basis for his propaganda - as he called it, in one of his infamous private 'confessions' (google his Gracie & Zarkov interview - he brags about it being bs).

The operational blueprint of the Stoned Apes fraud originates with the invention of evolutionary pseudoscience, as an 'inspirational' cause and subversive propaganda campaign - in the 1970s, by Old Time religion (not post-psychedelic New Age). Not only have biologists, anthropologist and other specialists in key fields not 'analyzed' this 'hypothesis' - they've never heard of it. Nor would they reasonably be expected to have - as a matter of staging operations, and how any subversive caper is carried out. The 'theory' - to again quote McKenna (from a 10 hour indoctrination session his following commemorate on youtube as 'Tree of Knowledge") - is for presentation 'in private, among friends and fringies, it doesn't trouble me to confess ..."

And the sources in which such a 'hypothesis' is perpetrated discursively, largely fall outside the range of 'lit review' methods in science and scholarly studies - and as far therefrom as possible (the better to go undetected for wrong' purposes) - as noted by a San Francisco college librarian:

“Analysis of over 700 citations in a bibliography of the late 20th century visionary philosopher and eschatologist Terence McKenna reveals that half the periodical articles and two-thirds of material in other media could not be found using the traditional bibliographic research infrastructure of bibliographic databases ... In compiling a bibliography ... I have had to seek publicly available websites—the visible, open Web—to find citations and works not represented in the traditional research infrastructure.” http://online.sfsu.edu/chrism/trolling/trolling-article.pdf It takes more than research, an investigative even 'under cover' approach is required to - get the goods on this crap.

And as one of vanishingly few sound edits for this entry (nor do I consider reasonable prospects of much improvement owing to WP policy, practice, procedure (deficiency of functional boundaries in theory or application) reflects - no, stoned apes has not received attention of specialists in the fields it rips off. They'veo mostly never heard of it. E.g. (example) - Richard Dawkins on a visit to Univ of MD campus in 2011 - a 'stoned aper' took opportunity in Q & A to broadcast 'word' for the McKenna cause, before the entire audience (the better to intrigue whoever). As reflects, not just Dawkins reply - but the questioner's theatrical recourse to "WIKIPEDIA" as some kind of proof its really a real theory - beautifully illustrates the 'staging operational' aspect of - the present entry with all its editorial sturm und drang:

Q: ... A while back I stumbled across the work of a gentleman named Terence McKenna, I don’t know if you’re familiar with him. He was a strong – he was actually more known for his, um, promoting, uh – psychedelic drug use? – or, I guess - recreational, in that sense, drug use. So, um - but he made an interesting, and this is what stood out to me, he made an interesting point on evolution, by mentioning the, the role that dieting played in – in how we evolved. And specifically – Dawkins: The role WHAT played? Q: Diets? Diet. Dawkins: Oh - diet, yes. Okay. Q: He was also known for saying that, for the – its on Wikipedia – the stone ape, stoned ape theory - ? Which was basically that our level of consciousness came from, uh, psychedelic material within, like, the dung of other animals or - I guess, when we came down from the trees as a species, we started indulging in their diet, the diet consisting of feces and so forth. So I just wanted to get your opinion on that, how, to what extent do you agree or disagree? Dawkins: What was the name again? Q: He promoted the stoned ape theory. Dawkins: NO what was HIS name? Q: Terence McKenna Dawkins: Yes - I know nothing about him. And I know nothing about his theory. I’m interested that you should tell us about it, thank you. But I’ve got no knowledge of it. So, thank you. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIED_TJ07VY

NOTE THE EXCLAMATION (for the studio audience to be impressed by) ITS ON WP! – as ‘validating’ reflection on its authenticity as a theory, its ‘legitimacy’ i.e. entitlement to be ‘recognized’ and ‘accorded status’ as such, true to the ambitions of Intelligent Design, Sciencey Creationism - etc.

akersbp Akersbp (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) (counted - four tildas) - Jan 2 2017

Novelty Theory

Bitcoin and Crypto are Terence McKenna's Novelty Theory 2.0 Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Timewave synthesizer

Timewave synthesizer does not appear to be notable on it's own. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to merge as any detail necessary is already included in this article. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Terence McKenna never mentions "Stoned Ape Theory" or "Stoned Ape Hypothesis" in his body of work.

Just as a background, i contribute to the Terence McKenna Transcription project where we get people to help transcribe his recordings and organize them chronologically. Was curious as to where the term "stoned ape theory" originated from because it certainly didn't come from Terence. So to make sure I searched through all the currently transcribed talks, books and articles authored by TM and there are no results for "stoned ape theory" or "stoned ape hypothesis".

There is an entry on the page that states: Later on, this idea was given the name "The 'Stoned Ape' Hypothesis."[42][71]

It should be changed or made clear that Terence himself did not coin the term.

Jonathanmlaliberte (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Jonathanmlaliberte

 Done. Hi Jonathanmlaliberte I changed it to reflect that fact as best as possible considering what the sources referenced say. But we can only build wikipedia form information from 'reliable sources', so if you can find a source which meets WP:RS criteria that states he never referred to it under that name, but it was later called that by others, or just that it was named by someone else, then we can update the article accordingly. But judging by the fact that McKenna's theory is commonly known by that name, and therefor searched for under that name, it's for the best that wikipedia mentions it rarther than doesn't refer to it under that name at all. Screamliner (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Change the picture of Psilocybe cubensis to a better one

The current picture is out of focus and not very good. There are better pictures on the Psilocybe cubensis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A460:5060:9C44:6B42:8646:43CF (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Stoned Ape section

This section needs serious love. It details the theory exhaustively, but the citations for every point are just reaffirming that McKenna made the arguments he did. They add nothing substantial, but make the theory appear intimidatingly scientific. It should be streamlined to a single paragraph laying out McKenna's argument.

Given the intense interest the theory has received, it should be noted that the entire premise is outdated. Genetic and archaeological finds have invalidated McKenna's argument. Anatomically modern humans were present in Africa millennia before McKenna's starting point. The Abbassia Pluvial ended in 90,000 BCE, well after McKenna asserted, and after the first evidence of H sapiens sapiens in Asia. H sapiens sapiens was outcompeted and did not return to Asia until around 70,000 BCE. By that time, Neanderthals had been established in Asia for several hundred thousand years, well before McKenna's "stoned ape" timeline, and they were capable of symbolic behavior.

The timeline doesn't match, the results don't match, and the article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.78.193 (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use his page for arguments about his ideas that don't have sources discussing him

That's |original research. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

to add to the end of the "stoned ape theory" section:

The stoned ape theory, however, does seem to lend support to some occult interpretations of the origin of human consciousness. As Manly P. Hall explains:

"Most of the ancient philosophies teach that life descended onto the physical planet from some sphere of superphysical energy which encloses the physical planet. Curiously enough this old opinion survives, and recent stratosphere explorations have discovered living spores in the stratosphere. A number of scientists have come to the conclusion that space may contain these spores which, like drops of condensing water, represent seed-lives oozed out of the etheric body of earth. It is too soon to say what will be the final opinions of scientists upon this matter, but it is also entirely too soon to declare the ancient philosophers to be wrong." (p.11, How To Understand Your Bible)

McKenna, too, has hypothesized that the durability of spores enables panspermiatic travel between vast interstellar distances of time and space.

sources: - "How To Understand Your Bible: a philosopher's interpretation of obscure and puzzling passages" by Manly P. Hall, 01942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manly_P._Hall)

-"Shrooms Are Organic Space Probes Sent to Earth by Aliens" from Terence McKenna lecture, http://thirdmonk.net/high-culture/terence-mckenna-shrooms-space-probes-aliens.html 020171117.egoistorms (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No mention of the "stoned ape theory" in the quote you give. Now this is pseudoscience so I am unsure what are "reliable sources" and what are not; but WP:OR is the same no matter the subject. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 22:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

[submission for the 'stoned ape' section] use of "the visionary origin of language" by alex grey, with link to alex grey's page https://www.alexgrey.com/art/paintings/soul/alex_grey_the_visionary_origin_of_language 020171117.egoistorms (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The Carl Jung picture is appearing as the thumbnail for this article when posted online, rather that Terence's picture

I suggest this be fixed. --Dr zoidberg590 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is broken and i cannot find that page on on archive org . http://www.21cmagazine.com/Terence-McKenna-The-Inner-Elf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.188.186 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issue. I found it at archive.today. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Stoned Apes Theory in popular culture: a popular NFT project called Stoned Apez was based on McKenna's Stoned Ape theory. Their site it https://stonedapez.club . Several of the creators discussed the origin for their idea on a Twitter Spaces held 09/23/2021 70.176.63.7 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Would only be included if it becomes particularly notable, which it doesn't appear to be at this time. Seems to just be trying to get free advertising by taking a similar name — IVORK _Talk 23:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Twin Peaks

The character Dr Lawrence Jacoby was based loosely on McKenna 2603:800C:2D00:6300:F166:4E:905D:6D2C (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

"enthalpic" not "entropic" Quist8 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

as per spource "When I told McKenna that I wasn’t sure exactly how his timewave theory worked, he launched into a vigorous explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existence emerges from the clash of two forces: not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repetitious, conservative; novelty is creative, disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale, you can see these two forces grinding against each other. You can also see that novelty is winning." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-psychedelic-guru-terence-mckenna-goofing-about-2012-prophecy/

Screamliner (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is there maintenance tag on 'critical reception'?

There is no need for this tag, all points are reasonably sourced. I will remove shortly if no one has any issues around this? Screamliner (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"bond harmine [...] with their own neural DNA"

Is that a literal quote from the book or from the subjects? Then it should be marked properly. If it's not a quote it should be rephrased because "bonding a chemical with the neural DNA" is not a thing. --mfb (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. MarshallKe (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a quote from the book. I added the quote marks Screamliner (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience"

This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of WP:RS. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Find a RS that supports this statement. MarshallKe (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that niche pseudoscience isn't going to have explicit criticism by WP:RS as they simply won't bother. A lot of credible science doesn't even get critical evaluation. Novelty theory is in "not even wrong" territory, it relies on false descriptions of history, misapplications of mathematics, denial of physics all to defend an illogical premise. I think that by looking at this we can see that it easily meets the requirement of "Obvious pseudoscience". JSory (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not even certain calling it pseudoscience is enough given that it was barely scientific to begin with. TBase2 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The bias and general hostile tone of the sources [10, 11] is suspect and not illuminating. Grammatical errors and repetitive insults (prophet of nonsense) undermines the value of these "sources." I do not think the statement "novelty theory is pseudoscience" is backed up effectively at all by the sources indicated. 2600:8800:7299:6E00:C1BD:FED:360A:4235 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Thank you for reviewing. Terence directly addresses concerns his views may be considered "mystical" in the clip linked below (fast forward to the end), as he currently is labeled "a mystic" in the first sentence of this Wikipedia article:

"Now I've been accused of mysticism... ... ... And worse."

Is it accurate to label McKenna a mystic, given his frequent criticism of gurism of all kinds, including "Swami Contempo or Guru Garagekey"? Walkingsocialcatalyst (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not letting me link to McKenna recordings on YouTube here Walkingsocialcatalyst (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remove "mystic" as a label because McKenna was not only not a mystic, but also he mocked being thought of as a mystic (search YouTube for the Peculiar Humor of Terence McKenna (Part 1). 143.178.181.54 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To remove the label, you would you have to be convincing that NO sources labelled him as such. We don't decide he is a mystic or not, the sources do, we just print what they print. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)