Talk:Terence McKenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Reclaim Your Mind Video on YouTube

This video is being circulated widely right now (1/26/07) Could somone make reference to this video and what larger spoken word performance this came from? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARIG-BQRATs

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)