Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Copyright, Priority, Innovation
Contents
I have scholarly priority of
discovery of entheogen determinism
Entheogen determinism is *my*
theory; *I* discovered it and own it
Permission to Translate Ego Death
Writings to Other Languages
Write clear subject headings if
send email
De Quincey's attempt to steal Ken
Wilber's intellectual property.
Challenge of finding time to read
serious books
See also: Scholarly Priority of Discovery
This website consists of copyrighted material. Per Fair Use copyright law, attribute
citations to "
This theory of ego death is the first theory to combine the dissociative cognitive state, a philosophical theory of self-control, a model of experiencing determinism and transcending it, and a theory of myth and religion in terms of experiential metaphor.
This theory is the first to systematically, explicitly, and non-metaphorically explain how the following four key areas are interconnected and have been interconnected, though much less clearly, throughout the history of religion and philosophy: dissociation, cybernetics, determinism, and metaphor. These four areas were centrally present in this theory starting in 1987, and the content of this theory reached full, mature completion in 2005. The period 2001-2005 is fully recorded with dates at the Egodeath discussion group.
Four domains of theory are key for constructing an adequate and relevant theory of transcendent experiential insight:
This Egodeath theory presents a rational, systematic model
of religious experiencing based on loose cognitive association, experiencing
no-free-will and its transcendence, and timeless block-universe
determinism. I provide coordinated
substantial coverage of all four of these areas as central and key, integrating
it systematically and clearly in plain presentation. That has not been done by Joseph Campbell,
Alan Watts, Ken Wilber, Carl Jung, Ramesh Balsekar,
Any theory of myth or religious revelatory epiphany that do not share this 'dissociation, cybernetics, determinism, and metaphor' configuration -- which is to say, all theories and models prior to this one -- are inefficient, unclear, and off-target. This theory explains and activates the religions (Christianity, Jewish, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, Western Esotericism) much more ergonomically and clearly than has been done before.
As a theory, this surpasses the theological theories of the religions, and truly qualifies as a theory, in the modern, systematic sense. This is not a copyright on esotericism as an experiential insight, but rather, this is a copyright on the first effective, clear, ergonomic, systematic, concise, explicit, nonmetaphorical theory and model of esoteric religio-philosophy.
This theory includes numerous innovative theories as components, integrated yet each noteworthy in their own right, including for example:
· The entheogenic trans-determinism theory of religion
· The maximal entheogen theory of religion
· The entheogenic theory of myth, perennial philosophy, and esotericism
http://egodeath.com -- simple theory of the ego-death and rebirth experience. The essence, paradigm, origin, and fountainhead of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose cognitive association binding, which then produces an experience of frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future. The effective restoration of self-control stability and the return of the ordinary state of consciousness is allegorized as a transcendence of Necessity or cosmic determinism. Myth describes this mystic-state experience. Initiation is classically a series of some 8 visionary-plant sessions, interspersed with study of perennial philosophy. Most modern-era religion has been a distortion, corruption, literalization, and cooptation of this standard initiation system.
http://www.cagle.com/news/blog/ - interesting article about how a tobacco company stole online art from an artist to promote tobacco and deliberately removed information pointing to her contact channels. About proposed laws allowing use of supposed "orphaned intellectual property".
Just because it's online doesn't mean it's orphaned, generic, public
domain material! Online publishing is
*real scholarship", damn it!
People email me: "You sure are concerned about ownership of the material at your site." Actually the dimwits who write this write something more like ""You sure are cnocerned about onwership of the stuff at yoru wbesite."
What don't you get about the concept of "intellectual property" and being ripped off? Is it so hard of a concept I have to explain and justifying not wanting to be robbed by opportunists? Youth is no excuse for such stupidity. These are people who can't even imagine creating and contributing something new to the world; they have no concept of intellectual creation or intellectual property; these are people in the mp3 filesharing generation, who purely consume others' intellectual labor and don't produce their own and lack the concept of intellectual labor.
For someone who has never created anything, it seems baffling why someone would want to retain ownership of their own works they've created. The people writing me these emails have never contributed any intellectual creation to the world, and can't imagine why creators don't just freely give away their work to the public domain.
There are degrees of ripping off or stealing online work. I have not done everything possible to identify owners of all graphics files at this site. But at least I'm not claiming it as my own work and signing my name to it or claiming that I've taken ownership of it because it is "orphaned intellectual property". It is clear enough which paragraphs and graphics here are created by me and therefore my intellectual property. Were I to productize this site, I'd have to at least make sure that my own writing and graphics are differentiated from that of others – which is already the case, I believe; I think there are few if any paragraphs or graphics for which you can't tell whether I created it or someone else did, whether or not that other person is specifically identified.
The
Internet archives and early postings in this discussion group clearly prove
beyond any possible doubt that entheogen determinism is *my* theory; *I*
discovered it and own it; it's my original idea and idea-combination. No one else to this day has coherently
asserted this essential theory in any book or article. There is no theory of religion that can
incorporate my theory and somehow go beyond it: mine is the final stop; this is
the only entheogen determinism theory of religion; it is incompatible with any
other person's theory which would presume to subsume and incorporate it.
Mine is
the biggest and most encompassing; otherwise this theory self-destructs if
absconded and incorporated into someone else's.
My theory is final and complete and ultimate, and I marry and stand by
it and have much evidential ammunition and witnesses to defend my claim to
it. The entheogen determinism theory is
ultimate and final and it is my discovery and creation, copyrighted and
patented; I own it, invented it, discovered it, and published it publically to
the world for several years.
Below are
previous postings linking to further evidence of scholarly priority.
I posted
this to the alt.philosophy newsgroup today.
This link seems to work:
news:KW0Bb.337584$ao4.1128403~at~attbi_s51
The name shown for my original posting in this thread in the newsgroup appears as "triptolemus". 'triptolemus' is a fluke; the only pen name I've used heavily was Cybermonk, and a few times I used Mark Hoffman -- though I wouldn't now, because Mark Hoffman is main editor of the recent great entheogen journal Entheos. I meant to show 'Michael Hoffman' (not a pen name).
"triptolemus"
<nospam~at~nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KW0Bb.337584$ao4.1128403~at~attbi_s51...
>I have
scholarly priority of discovery of entheogen determinism. Entheogen determinism is *my* theory; *I*
discovered it and own it.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/message/2708
--
>The
Internet archives and early postings in this discussion group clearly prove
beyond any possible doubt that entheogen determinism is *my* theory; *I*
discovered it and own it; it's my original idea and idea-combination. ...
Michael
wrote:
>>...
My theory ... The entheogen determinism theory is ultimate and final and it is
my discovery and creation, copyrighted and patented; I own it, invented it,
discovered it, and published it publically to the world for [since] several
years."
dc wrote:
>"Sorry
Michael, I patented all of the universe first!"
You were
remiss to not hire a competent lawyer of intellectual property. My theory of transcendence -- the theory that
entheogen-triggered determinism is the real meaning of religion-myth-philosophy
-- resides outside the universe and therefore is not covered by your patent.
If you
invented the universe, that makes you the demiurge: the clumsy, inept, and
deluded creator of this flawed and broken system, who demands worship as
controller and author of this world full of evil, lies, and delusion, out of
which the elect of the higher god are fished through transcendent gnosis, the
modern ergonomic systematization of which I have invented, discovered,
patented, and productized.
Thus
regardless of further attempts of other people to claim priority of discovery,
I shall maintain -- without real need for further defense and proof, it having
been firmly established beyond any reasonable doubt -- that I have clearly
established my priority of discovery of the entheogen determinism theory of
religion, which is clearly defined and delineated in my previous writings
readily available to everyone on the Internet.
dc wrote:
>>Recasting
entheogen theory acording to the time and place is a good thing, so your effort
is excellent. At the same time your
theory will evolve, building on your basis, but in terms of infintite time that
has already been done to it's full conclusion and all participants agree to a
particular protocol for any given temporal time. Agreement is necessary so that the master
theory can be understood in every cultural and temporal context.
There may
or may not be a bit of tangential aspects of truth implied by the above (this
is not a concession).
Innovation
is an interesting subject I have read books on and regret not being able to
write much on at the moment.
I cannot now
conduct a full defense of my position on this point, but the immediately
important thing is to make it crystal clear that *I* discovered and labored
over constructing this theory or theory-formulation, before other scholars and
theorists. It is my hard work,
innovative work; I have serious disagreements with all other scholars, and
major benefits over their works. Mine is
the first non-bungled system, the first airplane that really actually flies.
Time
doesn't permit detailing the nature of innovation and intellectual property
here, but the first order of business is to state ownership and claim, and
state what it is I'm claiming (see previous posts over past years for such
statements). I am not this month first
announcing ownership -- rather, I am adding even extra additional clarity to
the past adequate and clear postings.
I regret
not having time to continue this important and interesting discussion at the
moment. I hope people continue to post
such interesting discussion.
My
airplane is the first to fly; it incorporates previous research and further
fine tuning just like the Wright brothers who are credited with
"inventing" the airplane, in shorthand. Innovation is largely group and largely cumulative
-- but still real, and intellectual property is a valid construct.
I'm very
important, very distinctive, very innovative, and can explain how, with respect
to all similar authors, showing how I'm different and better than all similar
authors. This is an essential
characterization of intellectual innovation in general -- an interesting
subject, including ego as a nexus of ownership; the subject of intellectual
property opens out into all sorts of interesting topics in philosophy,
including politics, ownership, identity, attribution, intellectual history of
ideas, and the theory of knowledge. It
is not a simple simplistic subject nor conversation.
What is
innovation? What is authorship? What is attribution? What is creativity, discovery,
systematization?
The word
'theory' derives from "theater-watching", where real theater (Attic
Tragedy, but also medieval mystery plays) was based on entheogenic-determinism
initiation, as Hellenistic Mystery Cults were.
Most modern theater is vulgar, secular, non-transcendent -- not the
Matrix though, or 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Opera has some esotericism themes too; there were some visionary plants.
I'm *not*
a footnote to any Plato. Plato and
Wilber and Buddhist ancients are footnotes to *me*.
dc wrote:
>I
patented you Michael. "The
consumate explorer and temporal, theoretician of the block-universe entheogen
determinism theory" So no need to worry about your intellectual property,
being absconded.
>That
is way I purt my sentence in quotation marks and then said, "and so it
goes....."
>"Universe,"
being a word with a number of meanings applies to both the local, inept and
broken system as well as that which is "outside," voidness, eternity
and manifestation.
>An
important feature of the master theory, is that it can be stated in words,
within a number of frameworks, which are time and place dependent.
>Like
all theories they can be watered down and misused. Someday it is quite possible the word
"entheogen," could also lose it's meaning and revert back to it's
root meaning devoid of visionary plant use.
In another time, science could manage to circumvent even the need for
ingestion of visionary plants, controlling the chemistry in a even more precise
way. Theory, also reverts back to argued
distinctions to where to original meaning is lost and all that is left are
those arguing about the shell.
>Each
language has a different word for nearly everything. Each theory can also be
found to be onesided as expressed in words.
>In
high Mahayana Buddhism the master theory is called "Ichinen
Sanzen." as elucidated by Chih-I in
>In
real Buddhism there are already terms for the stage of your theory and whole
sectarian layers of dialectics and recapitulations, mirroring whatever debate
one could have about it.
>All of
it is words until put into practice and validated in terms of reality as it is
(Shoho Jisso). Whatever expedient means
that is used to explain a theory is replaceable by the "actual." Thus
there are two
You only
have to tell me one thing: where in the Buddhist texts does it explicitly say
that "religion is metaphorical-only description of the use of visionary
plants to encounter determinism"?
Nowhere explicitly -- which proves that I am innovative, as far as the
record of philosophical writings reflects.
Where in
the Buddhist texts does it explicitly say that "religion is
metaphorical-only description of the use of visionary plants to encounter
determinism"? Where does it say
explicitly and clearly the equivalent of:
"The
only essence, paradigm, origin, core, fountainhead, and ultimate goal of
religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic
altered state, producing loose cognitive association binding, which then
produces an experience of frozen block-universe determinism with a single,
pre-existing, ever-existing future. The
return of the ordinary state of consciousness is allegorized as a transcendence
of Necessity or cosmic determinism.
Myth
describes this mystic-state experience.
Initiation is classically a series of some 8 visionary-plant sessions,
interspersed with study of perennial philosophy. Most religion is a distortion, corruption,
literalization, cooptation, and missing-the-point overcomplication of this
simple, standard initiation system."
Scramble
as you will, nothing comes close -- proving my assertion of true scholarly
priority. I would very like to see the
writings you describe, in any case -- I shouldn't need to say that I appreciate
your work and discoveries and hope for more of your writings.
DC wrote:
>You
generally tend to focus on a western theoretical basis and I tend to focus on
the eastern. As I have time, I will post
the sectarian differences in Buddhism and Hinduism and correlations with your
terminology and Sanskrit, Chinese and Japanese
terminology.
>It may
help you see what I am referring to, when you have a broader awareness of the
Ichinen Sanzen theory of Chih-I and how it relates to all this. The details of Ichinen Sanzen is expressed on
many levels within high Buddhism, from metaphoric to specific. The history of the debates within Buddhism
run the gamut.
>The
other part of this discussion relates to the "method of teaching," in
any given time or place.
>I too
wish to see "restatements" in
"modern" academic terms and applaud your effort to do this. Do not underestimte the more obscure details
and development of real buddhism or be confused by the appearance of followers
who take things on faith alone and the existing literalism that is prominent.
The
Internet archives and early postings in this discussion group clearly prove beyond
any possible doubt that entheogen determinism is *my* theory; *I* discovered it
and own it; it's my original idea and idea-combination. No one else to this day has coherently
asserted this essential theory in any book or article. There is no theory of religion that can
incorporate my theory and somehow go beyond it: mine is the final stop; this is
the only entheogen determinism theory of religion; it is incompatible with any
other person's theory which would presume to subsume and incorporate it.
Mine is
the biggest and most encompassing; otherwise this theory self-destructs if
absconded and incorporated into someone else's.
My theory is final and complete and ultimate, and I marry and stand by
it and have much evidential ammunition and witnesses to defend my claim to
it. The entheogen determinism theory is
ultimate and final and it is my discovery and creation, copyrighted and
patented; I own it, invented it, discovered it, and published it publically to
the world for several years.
Below are
previous postings linking to further evidence of scholarly priority.
Scalino,
I grant
you permission to translate the articles at Egodeath.com into French if you
credit me as the original author; for example:
Michael
Hoffman
Michael
Hoffman of Egodeath.com
Michael
Hoffman, author of the website Egodeath.com.
Michael
Hoffman, author of The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
The oldest
title of my area of work (my Theory) is:
The
Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence
Regarding
a title or label, recently I think of it simply as
The
Theory of Ego Death
I don't
have a published book, so that makes it harder to reference me -- but I'm very
identified with the Egodeath.com site. I
want to write a book, but it might not happen as soon as people want.
My more
recent work isn't currently at the site -- it's in the Egodeath discussion
group; I post there in the form of informal articles. Almost all my work of the past year has been
studying the relation of entheogens and Christianity, and the relation of
official religion, mystic religion, and entheogenic religion, portraying
entheogenic religion as the purest extreme of mystic religion.
I hope to
incorporate my discussion-group postings into the website, and turn the site
into a book. I don't see how I can put
off writing a book much longer, because I no longer feel any real novelty in
reading religion and philosophy books; I've developed and stabilized a certain
way of reading and interpreting the books, so there is nothing really new to be
discovered in them as far as breakthroughs -- merely further, extra
confirmation.
I used to
read the books to have breakthroughs and confirmation of the breakthroughs, but
now I've reached a steady-state alternative view. I should read much more, but I can't expect
to really discover anything novel. I'm
good at hunting down basic insights, and I've done that all the way. I'm less interested in polishing and filling
in gaps.
The latest
subject I've noticed is
Religion
is entirely and only allegorical, with the original and driving theme being
metaphors for specifically entheogenic insights and cognitive phenomena. It's not really, originally, or centrally
about meditation, contemplation, ethics, mundane morality, empowerment,
metaphysical freedom, magic, or supernatural.
Genuine
and original/essential religion does incorporate these themes and connect to
them, but the most important thing in truly understanding religion is to
specify what the essential theme is and what the merely secondary or auxiliary
metaphors are. For example, astrotheology
and many other allegory systems do map to core religion, but they are not core
religion.
What is
the core, and what is merely derivative and auxiliary? That is the main question, the only question,
the radical root question. According to
my theory of religion, the core, root, foundation, and fountainhead of religion
is entheogenic in method -- not meditative or contemplative -- and concerns,
first of all, the combination of no-separate-self and no-free-will, as far as
intellectual content of revelation -- what is revealed by the method.
Other
methods are incidental, derivative, secondary, alternative, later,
degenerations. This is the inverse of
what Mirceau Eliade incorrectly said of use of entheogens by shamans, and as
has been falsely said of "later, degenerate mystery religions" -- I
need to remember which scholar wrote or said that.
As the
truth comes out about the actual history, origin, and nature of religions, we
can expect more such desperate attempts to defuse the now indisputable fact
that religions have been fully involved in entheogen use, that the Eucharist,
Passover, Agape love feast, and Banquets, and potions, and mixed wines, and
Hellenistic symposiums, and sacred meals, and myths/rituals with these elements
at *dead center*, were utterly common interpretations from the start, and
before the start, and after the start, up through the present day, in all the
religions -- it is hopeless and futile to attempt to sideline and steer-aside
this *strong* entheogenic presence in the religions and their histories.
The
officials will be forced to do something more like their strategy with regard
to acknowledging the continuing heavy use of psychoactive drugs today after
decades of (phony and profit-driven) prohibition. The officials no longer claim to be reducing
drug use -- now their self-promotion strategies must be based on fully
admitting that the (pseudo-) problem hasn't gone away one bit, after decades of
their supposed efforts to reduce drug use.
The same
thing is bound to happen as the truth comes out about the fact of the
predominance of entheogens at the heart of the religions: scholars and
officials who are invested in the official false story of religion will be
forced to fully acknowledge that entheogens have always been completely common
in the religions. They will have to
somehow apologize and downplay the significance of this eventually indisputable
fact.
Such
scholars will have to squirm to distort the fully evident fact that entheogens
have always been the heart of religions -- the central method and key to
transcendent insight, utterly reliable and universal, unlike
contemplation/meditation. These scholars
might end up saying, for example, that though entheogens are the origin of
religion, it's immoral that that was the case, and a fully unfortunate
historical detail, and that such religion is illegitimate even though it is
historically the original and spiritually dominant source of religion.
We've seen
equally incredible attempts to deny the plain and obvious truth, in the phony
and absurd "war on drugs".
We'll end up with official scholars pointedly ignoring, obviously
distorting and lying and talking around the clear facts -- we're already seeing
such blatant evasion. More and more
scholars of religion are being forced to admit and at least mention that there
are completely unrefuted theories about the use of psychoactives in early
religion.
Some
official scholars make a point of talking around this and not mentioning it; others
acknowledge it without comment, but none dare think they have the slightest
hope of *refuting* it.
Despite
all the assumptions and lack of explicit evidence, mitigating against the
entheogen theory of the origin of religions, it's clear that the entheogen
theory is, at root, basically *totally plausible*, and there is no viable
alternative. We confront a choice:
either religion comes from entheogens, or it comes from some totally
unfathomable source.
The
theory-choice is one between an absolutely specific and concrete entheogenic
theory, versus total fog, somewhat like the choice between the crazy
Copehagenist interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which nothing can be
visualized or conceptualized, versus the concrete and specific Einstein/Bohm hidden-variables
interpretation.
It's also
like one of the peak-experience choices we may experientially encounter as one
of the strange phenomena to be found in the mind: the sense of coming upon the
two alternatives of going insane or acknowledging no-free-will; either nothing
makes any rational sense, and the mental worldmodel cannot be coherent, or
there is no free will and no separate self and the mental worldmodel can be
coherent and founded on rational integrity.
I'm a
perfectionist, with high standards, which has advantages. It's inherently a hard book to write.
My guitar
Amp Tone work is, like the magazine Tone Quest Report, like a religious quest
for the Holy Grail of guitar amp tone -- like the new reverb pedal by
Electro-Harmonix, the Holy Grail reverb and the Holier Grail deluxe reverb
pedal. Electric guitar amp tone and ego
death are nicely distinct yet resonant.
Acid rock
and the late 20th Century resurgence of entheogens are intimately related, just
as Rave electronic music and exotic entheogens are intimately related. This pairing goes back to Hellenistic
religion and beyond, which was also an intimate pairing of experiential
spirituality and the potions, mixed wines, and ambrosias of the gods.
I'm
currently listening to a lecture series on CD about heretics, witches, and
mystics. Not only the origins of
Christianity are very different than the official Literalist story, the entire
history of Christianity and of other religions is very different that the
respective Literalist portrayals of them.
The history of religions is actually far richer and more diverse than
the Literalist story lets on.
We have a
heavily filtered and restricted, narrowed and skewed, whitewashed, cleansed,
and grossly distorted set of history books, theology books, and museum
displays. It's like asking the
government today to inform us about psychoactive drugs -- we can count on being
fed a load of total propaganda and disinformation.
That's
what the dominant, official story of religion is today -- propaganda and
disinformation. Forget everything you
think you know about religions and religious history; it's time to try on a
totally different view of what it's all about and where it comes from. The pieces are here now to go all the way
overboard and uncover an extremist, fully viable alternative picture of what
religion is actually all about.
My digital
& vacuum tube amp is buzzing along with guitar in lap and pick in lips;
back to the amp tone lab research.
In
religious philosophy, my latest interest is how the true center of gravity of
Christianity, and in some sense the real origin of Christianity, lies in the
later Middle Ages and is somehow based on medieval Jewish mysticism more than
on ancient Jewish religion. I have a
clear hunch about this, but haven't yet confirmed. Notably, I have ordered the remaining 3/5 of
the Gnosis magazine issues to complete my collection. Reading these issues is a high priority in
philosophy.
I do need
to fill in this area a little, to say something about it. But I have enough now to define a new
research paradigm and framework for myth-religion.
Another
topic to consider is self-control seizure and making peace with no-free-will,
and the personification of deity as benevolent controller of determinism, or
lifter out from cosmic determinism, found in some Buddhism such as in Kwan Yin
or the bright goddess lured out of her cave.
The idea
of a compassionate personal benevolent deity ruling over Fate and determinism
is an indicator of intense mystic experiencing that is so overpowering,
bringing self-control seizure and panic, a benevolent deity is postulated as
the last rational resort in the face of catastrophic practical instability and
loss of control.
Thank you
for the gift. I still have enough gift
money left to buy some more spirituality books -- perhaps Moshe Idel or Gershem
Scholem on Renaissance Jewish esotericism and mysticism, or Buddhist mysticism
and Bon shamanism.
My
egodeath theory research & scholarly discovery continues at a rapid pace
but on somewhat of a relative back burner for awhile, with possible occasional
postings.
I'm bulk
deleting email. All email with subject
lines like blank, Hi, lkjlkj, or "about your message" will be bulk deleted. If you are a poor email writer as so many
are, too bad -- crummy subject lines will cause the email to be deleted without
reading.
Do Critics
Misrepresent My Position?
A Test
Case from a Recent Academic Journal
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/critics_01.cfm
This
interesting article describes dirty moves in scholarly criticism, such as
misportraying and distorting an original thinker's position in order to appear
to refute him but then falsely claim credit for the original author's innovated
ideas and discoveries. Relevant also for
online debate/fighting & miscommunication.
Ken wrote:
>>To
complicate matters, de Quincey has a tendency to take one detail and excoriate
me for "completely misunderstanding" it, but then in footnotes he
concedes that I actually do understand it, often quite perfectly, but I should
emphasize the point more. As we will see, there is not a single major issue
where de Quincey categorically rejects my model, although he gives that
impression at every turn, with each theoretical criticism followed by yet
another ad hominen attack. I must confess that I came away from reading his
essay with an almost complete confusion about what was said and how I should respond.
This is no doubt due to the fact that I lack all feelings and thus have no
interpersonal compass (:-).
>>As
is often the case with my critics, I happen to agree with much of what de
Quincey has to say; it is simply that, in trying to establish his own view, he
finds it necessary to distort my own, perhaps to better emphasize the
differences between us. In doing so, de Quincey either takes a partial aspect
of my position and claims that it is my total position (he does this quite
often); or he simply does not present my actual position in the first place. I
will try to point out where and how this occurs in his critique. As students of
my work have been quick to point out, misrepresentation of my work is quite
common, simply because there is so damn much of it, and many of my actual
positions are buried in obscure endnotes; I have not helped much in this
regard, a situation I am doing my best to rectify (as I will explain below).
Thank God,
you admit that endnotes are evil. I hate
endnotes; they suck and are intended to prevent communication. My books would never include endnotes -- use
footnotes or integrate into text. Big
endnotes is bad and ineffective authoring.
>>But,
as I said, I happen to agree with virtually all of de Quincey's main points (and
my overall writing, when accurately reported, makes it very obvious that I
agree with him). There is an old saying, "Scholars spend their time
maximizing their minimal differences," and it strikes me that de Quincey
is trying to make room for his contributions by attempting to aggressively
muscle me out of the picture in the areas that reflect his own special
interests and concerns. Still, he asks (in one of those footnotes that quietly
retract his criticism of my model), "I hope he [Wilber] sees me as an ally
in the project to put the second-person perspective on the radar screen in
consciousness studies and philosophy of mind. I think there is room in his four
quadrants for true intersubjectivity, and I'm just trying to clarify what I
think it is." Well, I do see de Quincey as an ally in that regard, and I
have ever since I tried to help him get his important book on intersubjectivity
published; and I still consider his position a very important contribution vis
a vis the profound significance of intersubjectivity not only for
consciousness, but for the Kosmos as well. I will try to emphasis these
important points of agreement as we go along, since de Quincey does not.
>>...De
Quincey then subtly retracts: "Wilber's 'interiors' all the way down and
Whitehead's 'prehensions' all the way down are tokens of the same ontological
type. This is the essence of panpsychism." Correct, as I myself state on
numerous occasions. De Quincey has once again excoriated me for something I do
not believe, and then himself retracted his attack in a footnote.
>>In
the course of his condemnatory attack on my "straw-man
panpsychism"--which I explicitly identify with Whitehead's and
Griffin's--de Quincey moves into a long discussion of the confused nature of my
treatment of feelings in general. De Quincey claims that I relegate feelings or
emotions ONLY to the lower, prerational levels of development. This is
categorically false. In an online
interview with Jim Fadiman, I summarize my overall position: ...
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/critics_04.cfm
BORROWING
>>In
perhaps the most embarrassing part of his attack on my work, de Quincey accuses
me of subconsciously plagiarizing his work (although why he would want to claim
that the model that he so aggressively attacks is actually his model is not
made clear). As much as you want to see your critics fumble the ball when they
are unfairly attacking you, this was just painful to watch.
>>In
1995 I published SES. The core of its argument, as de Quincey acknowledges, was
a call to integrate "the Big Three"--the big three of art, morals,
and science; or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True; or I, we, and it; or
first-, second-, and third-person dimensions.[7]
>>Three
years later, in 1998, de Quincey presented a paper that called for integrating
first-, second-, and third-person approaches. He sent me this article in 1997.
I told him I agreed with it, since it repeated my own model and my own
conclusions.
>>In
his JCS article, de Quincey suggests that, having read his paper, I unconsciously
"borrowed" his call for integrating the Big Three. He says, "I
was pleased to see Wilber subsequently emphasize what I was calling for: a
comprehensive 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person approach to consciousness studies (which
Wilber now calls the 1-2-3 of consciousness studies)." But, of course, I
had been emphasizing that Big-Three approach starting with SES, as its many
endnotes make perfectly clear, and this approach was repeated--including the
call for a Big-Three approach to consciousness studies--in The Eye of Spirit,
written in 1996 and published in 1997 (see the Collected Works, volume 7), all
of which saw the light of day before de Quincey's paper began circulating.
>>In
an endnote, de Quincey says, "I do want to state for the record that the call
for a comprehensive 1, 2, 3 of consciousness studies was first presented in my
>>This,
as I said, is simply painful. I deeply appreciate that Christian wants to have
his ideas acknowledged, and I am more than glad to point to him as a worthy
comrade in the drive for an integral Big-Three approach to consciousness
studies. I have a reputation for scrupulously giving credit where credit is
due, as thousands of footnotes readily attest, but the suggestion that I got
this idea from de Quincey just left me totally speechless (as it did every
person I talked to about his article). But de Quincey is quite right about one
thing: there is indeed some extensive, unconscious borrowing going on here.[8]
I have
seen entheogen scholars reluctant to credit each other, and eager to dismiss
and criticize each other, lopsidedly. I
*try* to give credit where due, but it's hard to keep track, and sometimes
speedy thinking tosses such historical accidents of who first thought of what
out the window as an irrelevant burden -- but it would help if each author
would provide a list of what they consider to be their innovative
contributions. I believe I once posted
such a list -- I should post a repeated and reworded version.
I could
write posts, or new posts, reflecting on the topic of intellectual
property. I have written on it, but
these may be hard to find. When I upload
my past posts, I will reoutline so you can find my writings. This would help me: people would understand
my ideas (and identify my innovations/ original contributions and distinctive
emphases) because they could find them straightforwardly, a problem Wilber now
has to deal with even though he's formally published books; people still garble
his position or past evolution of positions.
>>CONCLUSION
>>We
have seen that, of the ten or so major issues that de Quincey addresses in my
work, he substantially misrepresents every one of them. I have in each of those
cases given what de Quincey says, followed by direct quotes of mine showing
what I actually said, and readers can see for themselves the jarring
discrepancies.
>>Obviously,
the question arises as to why this happens. I will set aside any personal or
professional motivations of de Quincey's (I really don't know him), and instead
focus on what seems to me the sufficient reason for such widespread
misunderstanding of my work: the sheer volume of the material. I also have a
tendency to write on two levels--the main text and the voluminous endnotes, and
often my nuanced position is buried in the endnotes. There is also the fact
that I constantly try to incorporate criticism into my work and alter my ideas
based on responsible criticism--hence the four major phases of my work, with
others surely to follow (thus, the idea that every time somebody criticizes me
I claim that I am being misunderstood is ludicrous; if that were the case, I
would never have presented any model beyond wilber-1. Even de Quincey
acknowledges that "Wilber has a way of assimilating and accommodating the
barbs of his critics"--a backhanded compliment for the fact that I greatly
appreciate responsible criticism and do whatever I can to fix any problems with
my presentation.) But this often means that somebody will give a blistering
attack on, say, wilber-2, and that attack gets repeated by others who are
trying to nudge me out of the picture, with the result that, as the editors of
A Guide to Ken Wilber concluded, over 80% of the published and posted
criticisms of my work are based on misrepresentations of it.
>>Keith
Thompson offers what I think are two cogent criticisms of the way I write as
contributing to this problem. I believe he is correct on both counts.
Keith
Thompson wrote:
>>>Having
said all of that, do I find Wilber maddening? Yes. Surely not in all respects,
but very much so in some. The annoying problem that I have found in attempting
to criticize Wilber's work is that he often states his actual, detailed
position on a topic in several obscure endnotes spread over several books (this
is certainly true with his treatment of Whitehead; also his theory of
semiotics, his actual stance on intersubjectivity, holography, etc.). Then,
since in the main text of his books, he tries to be more popular, he often
gives simplified, popularized, and therefore sometimes slightly misleading
accounts of his real position. If you want to criticize him, criticize him for
that! It has gotten tons of reviewers into real trouble, because they take his
popularized statements at face value. Of course, Wilber's defenders then come
back with the actual quotes about his real position, dug up from some obscure
endnotes, and the reviewer looks like an idiot. This can be very exasperating,
but still, it doesn't excuse critics misrepresenting his actual or more
sophisticated position.
>>>Speaking
of Wilber's defenders: Shambhala is about to add a new feature to Wilber's
domain of the Shambhala Web site. It's going to be called "Wilber
Watch," and it's going to identify misrepresentations of Wilber's views. I
told a friend who works at Shambhala that this seemed to me, well, a bit funny.
He said in one sense he agreed... but then he forwarded to me many illustrations
of said misrepresentations, and I was frankly amazed. Most involved egregious
misreadings of Wilber's work, some of so studied in their mistaken conclusions
that it was hard not to attribute bad faith to their promulgators.
How many
past and future criticisms of my theory, The Cybernetic Theory of Ego
Transcendence, including the maximal entheogen theory of religion and the
entheogen determinism theory of the core of religion, are misrepresentations
(including misrepresenting various aspects of entheogen experience &
potentials) based on such "bad faith"?
>>>By
the way, not a single one of said "misrepresentations" was simply a
matter of the writer reaching different interpretations than Wilber. Ken has
repeatedly said he has no problem whatever with anyone reaching different
conclusions than his. I have watched many Integral Institute participants do
that time and time again, sometimes quite vociferously disagreeing with Ken.
Each and every time, Ken has nodded and said something like, "Fair difference
of interpretation.... I can see how you reach that conclusion."
>>>At
the same time, Ken has a very keen eye for "different interpretations of
the data" that are in fact little more than misreadings (willful or not)
of his work. I don't blame Ken's "defenders" for wanting to identify
these and hold them up to a wide audience. (Wilber's section of Shambhala has
gotten more than a million hits already this year.) A really good and valid
criticism, it seems to me, would not be to try to attack his position on a
single issue (like philosophy of mind or intersubjectivity), but call him to
task for never producing a definitive glossary. For work spread out like his,
that is inexcusable. I think he or his students are working on one (last I
heard it was 400 pages), but he really needs to be kicked in the ass for this.
"A
really good and valid criticism ... would not be to try to attack [Wilber's]
position on a single issue ... but call him to task for never producing a
definitive glossary. For work spread out like his, that is inexcusable. ... he
really needs to be kicked in the ass for this.
People
have pointed out the same in my discussion of a need for a glossary about
Cybernetic Transcendence/Ego Death.
Ken wrote:
>>Point
taken. I have also decided that there is no real way out of this morass of
misrepresentation unless I start teaching my material. De Quincey's article was
the straw that broke this camel's back. It was so off the wall that I decided I
really needed to take some sort of action.
>>Nor
can I count on the editors at professional journals to help me out here (Bob
Forman is a major exception), because they face the same difficulties as
everybody else. The managing editor of JCS was sent a long email by Keith
Thompson pointing out the many inaccuracies in de Quincey's article (portions
of that email were reprinted above). The editor declined to do anything about
it, or even to print Thompson's corrections. Nor did the editor show me de
Quincey's article before it was published; nor did the editor offer me a chance
to respond to these distortions. Again, I don't blame editors for this; I doubt
that I would give much space to a whiney author who's always complaining
"That's not what I said!"
I would
not ever use the word 'whiney'; I discourage use of it -- it is a dirty move,
foul play, vague and nebulous, more confusing than helpful, a way of falsely
appearing to refute someone's point.
>>The
good news in all this is that it has spurred me to begin taking this material out
in the world myself. This will also give people a chance to see me in the
flesh, and thus decide if I am really the devil that their projections
proclaim. (Of course, they might decide yes! But at least it will be based on
real intersubjective impressions, not shadow projections.) I have already
started doing this with Integral Institute, as Keith noted above, and we are
starting a period in Integral Institute's history where this type of
interaction will only be increasing.
I have
written clearly my criticisms of Wilber, which do not misrepresent his position
-- he has poor awareness of entheogens and determinism throughout
religious-philosophical history, and really no coverage of the Mystery
Religions, and his theory of myth is therefore way off-base (vague,
inconsistent, and inchoate).
I need to
again accurately summarize the delta (difference) between my position and
Wilber's -- important because Wilber is a point of reference any philosopher
today *must* position himself with respect to.
Actually it's more a matter that I need to *organize* my existing
available writings to gather my critiques of Wilber.
The
impossible challenge of finding time to read serious books
I've been
jamming through many fascinating books about religious experiencing, origins of
Christianity, history of psychoactives, literary Bible hermenutics, theory of
Greek myth... but the joy of collecting and reading these books is
counterbalanced by the challenge of finding time to concentrate on reading
them.
A person
who spends time doing the ordinary and average
It's
bullshit the way in the U.S. people are given Winter "vacation" but
then they are expected to spend 100% of that "vacation" doing
*mandatory* tasks: you have to buy presents, you have to wrap presents, you
have to exchange and open presents, you have to visit relatives, you have to go
to the parties of friends, family, and company, you have to sleep in with a
hangover. And what time is left for
using time freely, to read books? None
at all. I have to practically hide from
the world to get a damn thing done, to make progress in reading these
books.
It's vexing
-- I had "holidays" and a weekend to read, who stole it from me? I *have* made progress in reading, but only
in spurts that are interrupted all too frequently. People have no respect for giving me a
continuous *uninterrupted* block of reading and thinking time -- and they are
probably not even able to imagine what it would take to provide that. Yes, much is my own weakness of discipline
and focus, but I am also becoming aware of how much one's relations threaten to
dominate and consume all of one's time, preventing higher pursuits. It would be different if these relations were
intellectually challenging, but such socializing is, as a rule, a degraded
killing of time together.
Perhaps my
complaint isn't about how hard it is to do lofty things in such a predominantly
low and vulgar world, but rather, how hard it is to concentrate on any
particular dedicated pursuit in a world that has no focus but is only a chaos
of random distractions."
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)