Talk:Novelty theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking through the 7.1 software archive that 66.134.102.50 added a link to, I realize that I was the one that compiled it and wrote the readme. For the life of me I can't remember when, or how I released it. Or how I lost it. I'm interested to know how the person who put up the link came by it. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to let me know. — Clarknova 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Numerology Vs. Mathematics 2 Is McKenna being serious? 3 The Software 4 McKenna's description of hyperspace or the meeting with the hyperdimesional object 5 Neutralization needed

[edit] Numerology Vs. Mathematics

I thought in order to be NPOV a lot needed to be said about his claims to Novelty Theory being a "mathematical theory", most mathematicians would disagree to that status. There is very little "mathematical " about it, it is much more numerlogical. Of course the article still needs to be NPOV and respect Mckennas's views but since it is a theory that, if even considered by the mathematical community at large, which it is not do to it's very numerological nature, would be a very controversial theory, and is usually rejected outright by those few mathematicians who have even considered it (it's hard to even find links to such criticisms made by trained mathematicians because it is so very rarely considered do to it's obvious numerologica nature.) It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal to the best of my knowledge (something to be expected considerig McKenna's rejection of the methods of what he called "Western" science--a disrespectful misnomer IMHO considering the many valuable contributions from the East.) I added some material about the controversial nature of the claim, I tried to be NPOV, as a matter of fact the effort was an attempt tp make the article more NPOV, and less lauditory, although fans of McKenna's work might disagree to the success of my NPOV eforts. If you change any of my additions please discuss it here first.

I suspect some might consider relegating all such criticism to the "criticism" section, but since the claims to it being a "mathematical" theory are so dubious I think its appropriate that the controversey of the claim be mentioned where the claim is first stated, especially since the claim is made right next to the very numerological sources. If you don't understand the difference between numerology and mathematics please refrain from attempting to contribute to this portion of the article, as little of use is likely to be added someone who does not know anything about the subject.

For the record I respect some of McKenna's efforts, namely his efforts to preserve plants used by indigenous cultures, I just think a lot of his theories were silly, a feeling which I tried to keep out of the article, only mentioning, in a attempt to make the article less POV, the very real controversy of his claimes to Novelty Theory being on a sound mathematical or scientific ground. --Brentt 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I just rewrote much of what you added, so the article discusses the theory's numerological basis without actually criticising that through math. There isn't any reason for the article itself to be critical of novelty theory, as encyclopedias aren't here to make claims about what is and isn't objective fact. I also got rid of some redundancy in wikilinks and in the paragraph at the bottom of criticisms. However, I beleive that everything you brought up is still in there, as it should be. --Heah (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Defintitely an improvement on my edit; its now a more neutral phrasing and structure than either my version or the previous version. Thank you for the contribution. --Brentt 10:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is McKenna being serious?

Terrence McKenna is not known to have ever issued such a statement. Indeed, in his published books, interviews, and recorded lectures McKenna consistently treats the theory as seriously as any of his other material.

I've listened to all his lectures I could get my hands on, and have never had the feeling of him treating the thing as a scientific theory. I even read the Invisible Landscape and it is described in an introduction - justifiably so I believe - as akin to a dense alchemical grimoire - that was also my feel for the book - using all theories at their disposal to attempt to explain something unexplainable, incoherent and passionate, but certanly not scientific. True, he did say it was a theory of mathematics, and that is totaly false. Actual factography was never his strong point :), and if confronted with the fact that it isn't math, I think he would have no problems retracting such a statement. He created the wave using just the basic mathematics, and some geometric intuitions, so I think that by seing a mathematical theory he meant only in the sense of dealing with numbers. I dont have the quotes to demonstrate this feeling, will look for them. I dont think he would call the thing a parody - I think he liked it (and how wouldn't he, since it came to him in such a drastic trip?), but was himself split about believing or not in it. But when presenting it, he allways called for people to test it by comparing the predictions of it with their own sense of the important events in history (supposedly he verified the Mayan end date by looking at the italian rennaisance) - thats more akin to other divination methods than science. Also I think he refered to it as his pet theory, and as some freakish object, etc. I see that there is a link in the pseudoscience to novelty theory - and again, he made no claims about it being scientific (I mean it was more like a channeled idea in a trip, totaly irational, antithetical to science), and that was a criterium of what constitues a pseudoscience in the beggining of that article. Just because something appears to one in a trip doesn't make the person that tripped it believe that its necessarely true - though it usualy makes one fond of the idea - for instance a guy in a trip saw an insectoid creature that explained that it is a mental parasite, living of the strength of emotion of the hosts - and he discusses the problem of the reality of such experiences, and is not ready to either believe or dismiss the experience. I think thats the logical adaptive attitude people take towards things they encounter on their trips, especially if tripping so intensly as McKenna, and believe that McKenna shared that aditute. He talked about pearing over the abyss and pulling something out of it - timewave zero was such an irrational object.

-aryah

Perhaps your right about Mckenna's view towards the theory--I suspect, though I could be wrong, Mckenna was not a typical dogma entrapped pseudo-scientist and would have been open and understanding of criticism. But I think many people take his theories as somehow having some scientific authority since he intentionally or unintentionally put a veneer of scientism on it (while at the same time critisizing the important parts of science.) and that may qualify it as "pseudo-science"--a lot of people have a pretty poor understanding of what qualifies something as "scientific". Pseudo-science is a pretty loaded term with a lot of grey area (althought there are some pretty clear cut cases) and this is definitely one of the grey areas.

That being said I think the difference between numerology and mathematics is much more clear cut. And this definitely falls into the numerology category, not mathematics.

Thats strange about the insectoid alien parasite, I had a friend who had that same trip on DMT, insect-like alien creature harvesting something from his brain. I wonder what it is that makes people have such similar trips with such specific narrative details (although there seems to be as much variation as similarities). --Brentt 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think wether McKenna took himself seriously or not depends on the time period and his venue. In some speeches and for some audiences he was more committed, and for some, less. Usually he makes some kind of verbal disclaimer, but I have a video produced by Sound Photosynthesis where he's shown discussing the theroy as fact.

One thing McKenna -never- did was publicly announce his theory was a parody. This is Peter Meyer's assertion. Meyer may have had some private discussion with McKenna along these lines, but there's no record of it, and it's likely that he never knew McKenna personally.

McKenna always allowed for the possibility that Novelty Theory was accurate.

As a side note: In his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule, Dr. Rick Strassman prints the trip reports of several of his DMT test subjects. One of them stands out as a sentient, parasitc insect hallucination. In this case the mantids (or whatever they were) were feeding on the emotions from the test subject's heart. — Clarknova 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Software

I have a copy of Timewave Zero 4.3. Is there really a Fractal Time 7.1? I cannot find it. --Ajay5150

yeah. does the link not work anymore? i just clicked on it and got a 403 permission error. If that happens to others too it should be removed. but i've downloaded it in the past- it isn't much improved from 4.3; it has some insignificant additional features that i can't recall as well as being in bad color. More importantly it uses a slightly different timewave, having taken watkins' objection into account and reprogrammed accordingly. --Heah ^talk 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I found some versions linked at deoxy. If they are the latest anyone can find, perhaps we should link them on the main page? Steved424 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McKenna's description of hyperspace or the meeting with the hyperdimesional object

~~GS~~

Can anybody provide me with a link or tell me what McKenna's description of hyperspace was like? He mentioned that there was an entrance into hyperspace or a hyperspatial breakthrough by a hyperdimensional object. Recently, a friend of mine mentioned the novelty theory and I wanted to know if somebody could tell me what the description of his hyperdimensional space was like.

Not quite answering your question, but you might find The Reciprocality Project and The Third Age interesting. Bear in mind that I'm pretty sure the dopamine stuff is wrong. Steved424 22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutralization needed

This article desperately needs fact checking and slant-reverting by a knowledgeable math/sci editor. I am too busy myself, but I want to note that the present version is absurdly credulous. This "theory" would not be regarded as anything but sheer nonsense by mainstream scientists. ---CH 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)