Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Contents
>After
all the word "theory," implies something that needs testing or proof,
... So to postulate this theory [the entheogen theory of the origin of
religion], one is really attempting to convince others in an academic mode.
That's not
as true as you say.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
A set of
statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena,
especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be
used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The branch of a science or
art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods
of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied
theory. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather than theory. A belief or principle that guides action or assists
comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals
usually return to the scene of the crime. An assumption based on limited
information or knowledge; a conjecture. [Late Latin theria, from Greek theri,
from theros, spectator : probably the,
a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horn, to see).][F. th['e]orie, L. theoria, Gr.
? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to
see, view. See Theater.]
1. A
doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or
contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
Note: ``This
word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is
with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used
as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly
used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they
were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost
exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.
2. An
exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science; as, the theory
of music.
3. The
science, as distinguished from the art; as, the theory and practice of
medicine.
4. The
philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as,
Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments.
Atomic
theory, Binary theory, etc. See under Atomic, Binary, etc.
Syn:
Hypothesis, speculation.
Usage:
Theory, Hypothesis. A theory is a scheme of the relations subsisting between
the parts of a systematic whole; an hypothesis is a tentative conjecture
respecting a cause of phenomena.
n 1: an
organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "true in fact and
theory" 2: a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would
explain certain facts or phenomena; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis
that later was accepted in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis,
possibility] 3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory
that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell
no tales"
"Theory"
has two meanings, as the definitions indicate: "hypothesis", and
"systematic model". I'm not
so much a philosopher or theologian or mystic, as a theorist and a constructer
of models.
These
factors you list are mostly just transient artifacts of a temporary cultural
situation. The culture treated the
materials as a toy but as a serious religious trigger as well. Even though most individuals disparaged
entheogens after using them in the 1960s, the fact remains that religion was an
unsurpassed theme. Also, *always ask*
how today's prohibition is distorting your apparent data and evidence.
How can
anyone know whether "most people" who used entheogens now disparage
them? That's selective reporting
bias. This culture promotes negative
public statements about entheogens, so you'll hear lots of those, and punishes
positive statements about entheogens, so you'll not hear many of those.
A list of
reasons for entheogen users later disparaging and belittling entheogens should
begin with the most forceful reason: the chilling forces of prohibition.
dc/rialcnis
wrote:
>We
are always dealing with the general connotation of a word, when communciating
to people. Non-experienmced people are by far a majority. The word "theory," even among
scinetists, generally means something being asserted, that is not yet accepted
as fact, because it is not yet proven to them.
Of course the only way to REALLY prove this "theory," is for
people to have the experience themselves.
Then they know it is no longer just a "theory." Whatever technical definitions of a word,
one may use, if the mind set of the person you are communicating with, uses the word to mean a theory that is proposed but not accepted yet, then
they want to see proof. In this case
all the documentary or theoretical proofs are just considered speculative,
unles they too can share the experience.
For instance, trying to explain gravity to people who always lived in
weightlessness, would require many words, and formulas, but not until someone falls under the sway of gravity how
could they understand it? Very few
people are equipped to understand what they have not yet experienced, no matter
how exceptional the explanations. To
ask people to accept what one says on blind faith, is what most religions have
tried to do.
>For a
person with a little bit of help and guiding, to totally change their view
about entheogens, would require a large dose and a little bravery and seeking
mind. First find brave people, then
find those with a seeking mind. That is
asking alot from the kind of population
that we fo=ind around us.
>Even
in the 60's with many people experimenting, only a small percentage of those
experimenters, 10 years later, would defend the use of entheogens. I knew many people who had semi-heavy
experiences, but ten years later they were party people doing budweiser and
coke and 20 or 30 years later they repudiate Entheogens, as though their experiences
meant nothing. Some one had written (I
don't remember who) that 2-4% percent of people who experiemented with
Entheogens in the sixites, had the kind of life changing experience that they
would say were religious experiences. Most of them, even those who became
religious due to LSD experience, tend to deny that entheogens as just
temporary--they buy into the guru chatter about "real" meditation, or
later actually denouce it as "drug induced," fantasy.
>To me
their were many reasons for this.
Dosage, polypharmacy-- washing down "acid" with budweisers.
Rolling donuts across the floor at Winchells Donuts instead of focusing while
using the entheogen, distractions, inability to let go of ego, setting,
etc. all those things.
The most
important measure for me, as the person who has to exert energy to think and
research, has always been the progress of my own understanding. Extreme solipsism: I assume no one else
exists to read this. Nothing stops
anyone from eavesdropping.
I wrote
about the doubtful significance of my poll about what people want to read. If I am currently obsessed with
schizophrenia and read and post about that subject, that will attract people
interested in that subject, who find my views worth reading. That self-selected audience would then vote
"we'd like to see schizophrenia covered" at my poll. So I have to take the poll results with a
grain of salt.
Ultimately,
due to the controversial nature of the 3 main topics I'm connecting, I can
never know my audience. Suppose Douglas
Hofstadter sees my material and is excited because his true secret interests
that motivated Godel Escher Bach are determinism, entheogens, and the Christ
myth. Do you think he would join this
publically visible discussion group and post?
Highly unlikely. I not only
write to an android audience, but an android audience that is silent and
invisible of practical necessity. This
writing is then a public soliloquy for an unseen and possibly absent audience.
When
writing online, I have always (for ten years) ignored personal particulars,
anyway, to avoid petty socializing (flame wars and conformist chit-chat). I have always written in an impersonal,
free-form article style, with a consistently mixed result of "amazing, the
best posting I have ever read" and complaints that, in the end, amount to
vague gripes about my throwing out the unwritten rulebook of conformity of
style, posting frequency and regularity, length, and personal niceties.
With rare
exceptions that just prove the rule, people don't care to read even the most
perfect and profound writings about ego death.
Most people don't read anything at all ever, period. A stoic apathy is required. I'm prepared to be in complete disagreement
with every last person, and additionally for everyone to have not the slightest
interest. I write to know, not to be
read, though I intend to make clear writing available in case I forget and want
to re-learn the ideas by buying my book.
I have a
deep respect for those who care not.
They are my most helpful audience.
Next comes those who are in complete disagreement -- they've helped me
the most. Those who agree are useless
and contribute nothing. What did Freke
and Gandy do for me? Nothing, they
simply agreed with me. What use is
that? It was a waste of time.
_________
For the official
record, however: they disagreed with all my ideas and insisted I just have to
drop my interest in determinism and entheogens and study Literalist
Christianity. In fact, they've become
born-again Baptists, confessing the Historical, Supernatural Jesus as their
Lord and Savior. "Don't forget,
brother," they said as we parted, pressing some Jack Chick tracts into my
hand, "Hell is hot, and eternity is a long time!"
http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk
But you
lose some and win some; Jack Chick converted from Literalist Supernaturalist
Protestantism to entheogenic Gnosticism, when he discovered that Amanita is the
true flesh of Christ and learned to turn water into wine himself. In these tracts, he explains how
Christianity began as a 2-level system of transformation from Literalist to
Mythic/Mystic Christianity, a transformation into true and complete salvation
from sin by obediently eating, and then drinking, the sacrament of apolytrosis
(redemption):
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0025/0025_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0045/0045_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0024/0024_01.asp
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)