I’m glad Coraxo, in the past couple postings, detailed what lies behind his
original assertion that Leary and McKenna abused or mis-used mind-altering
chemicals. I do think the accusation of Leary and McKenna’s “mis-use of
entheogens” can be reasonable *if* one defines, to Coraxo’s recent level of
detail, what specifically is meant. The accusation may possibly still be
wrong, but when detail is provided, an enlightening, detailed, nuanced debate
can follow.
The fact itself of Coraxo’s disparagment of Leary and McKenna is not at all
the problem. Leary and McKenna can jump off a cliff, and everyone else too.
It’s not my goal to protect and praise the 20th Century entheogen fathers.
The goal is an *accurate assessment* of the concepts that have been proposed
regarding mind, entheogens, and religious experiencing.
The great crime Coraxo is guilty of is not negativity or being judgmental of
some entheogen use; his significant violation is initially *being vague* in
his assertion of Leary’s “abuse”, and tending to think in oversimplistic
prefabricated cliched categories that don’t necessarily accurately fit the
other person’s debate position. Sometimes it’s hard to initially be so clear
as one ought.
We must be flexible about metaphorical use of language, and communication in
general. Expressions have a degree of truth. The main problem is, people use
terms as a *brittle* shorthand. There is some truth in “Leary abused
mind-altering chemicals”, but that assertion isn’t viable until more details
are provided to clarify and more or less justify what is being asserted.
Coraxo’s redemption as a debater is that he works to *eventually* clarify his
own position and to have a more accurate grasp of the other person’s position.
Most debate is a method of clarifying the respective positions, to find the
great degree of worldview agreement, even if the two positions remain distinct
paradigms that highlight different aspects and interpretations of the world.
Eventually, he posts defensibly “well-written scholarship and appropriate
commentary on fallacies within the spiritual community’s less than honorable
notice of the entheogenic relevance of the psychedelics”.
My general position is that entheogens are the origin of religion. It is
important, not petty and missing the point, to debate details such as whether
psychedelic figureheads “respected the indigenous roots” or “had a
materialistic vacuum as well as a spiritual portal”. We just have to be clear
that the main point is “entheogens are the basis of religion” and that the
minor point is “arguably, some psychedelic figureheads might not properly and
reasonably respect indigenous entheogen traditions”.
Even if we respect each other’s map of consciousness, to gain insight we must
criticize, accuse, defend, argue, debate, analyze, investigate.
It is possible to interpret the term “ego death” as aggression, such as the
aggression of Zeus in possessing mortal womenly souls. Spirituality is false
and distorted if it downplays the Hard Rock intensity of peak religious
experiencing, death, rebirth, Groffian spiritual emergency, Keseyian
freak-out, and Hoffmanian or Stephan __ “ego death”. Leary and Alpert wrote
an entire book centered around the ego death metaphor.
The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead
Ralph Metzner, Richard Alpert, Karma-Glin-Pa Bar do, Timothy Leary
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806516526
rank 39K (very popular)
I like Drum’s comments: “Take everywhere it says LSD and replace it with
Amanita muscaria (which was the real entheogen this manual is experientially
based upon). Then you have it! Keep in mind that NONE of the world’s religions
tell the whole truth, and this includes Tibetan Buddhism [and shamanism, I’d
add – mh]. All patriarchal religions have severe problems and you should know
what those problems (false dogmas) are before experimenting. The discovery
that this book is not necessarily a book for the dead but a book to map the
consciousness of those experiencing the shamanistic ‘death experience’ is
crucial to humanity’s understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and other world
religion.”
Coraxo has potential as a debater if he starts a debate with a more nuanced
and balanced and detailed position. But online postings are voluntary and
have no guarantee of compensation; where is the incentive to post the best
quality material you’re capable of? There’s no guarantee other post’ers will
work with you to develop the debate toward enlightening insight.
Leary has always been controversial among entheogenists. Did he give us the
gift of psilocybin and LSD, or did he take them away from us? Prohibition
can’t be blamed on any one person, but Leary is the one person most associated
with LSD, so all debates about LSD and entheogen prohibitions have Leary as
the center of contention. I’m trying to think of books or articles that
critically evaluate whether Leary is responsible for giving us psilocybin and
LSD or for having them taken away.
It is not a goal of this discussion group to have a positive mood. It’s not a
social group at all. It’s not a positive spirituality group at all. It’s not
a good vibes group at all. It is strictly an information group: what is ego
death, how does it work, how does it connect to religious and philosophical
traditions and fields.
Spirituality has various insights and moods. I am intent on cracking the
puzzles of the mystic-state phenomena that are most jarring, panicking,
mind-shattering, devastating, mind-blowing, and spiritual-emergency causing.
Anything else already has enough researchers and spiritual socializers and
loving communities working on it.
Negativity is relevant, on-topic, welcome and needed to the extent it
constructively sheds light on the egodeath experience.
Negativity is irrelevant, off-topic, unwelcome and not needed, to the extent
it destructively fails to shed light on the egodeath experience.
There are many discussion groups that are driven by the main goal of spiritual
peace and light and community; positive-feeling spirituality, emphasizing
heart and soul and emotion. This discussion group is a tool specializing in
mind, logic, rationality, reason, debate, specific argument, expose, paradigm
definition, and being specific.
Coraxo is sometimes a slow starter in focusing and elaborating his criticisms,
starting off a debate by punching at shadows in the wrong direction. But he
has shown his commitment in the long run to clarifying and elaborating his
position and more accurately grasping my position. I highly respect sustained
improvement over time. Coraxo has continued his work of sustained
constructive debate after I have changed to other subjects.
People motivated by positive spiritual vibes are uncomfortable with sustained
rational constructive debate involving the development of complaints,
accusations, defenses, sustained constructive argument.
Some psychedelic figureheads (possibly Kesey, Leary, McKenna, Ott) held the
libertarian position that drug “mis-use” is an empty notion. Other
psychedelic figureheads (Wasson, possibly Huxley and Huston Smith) held the
traditionalist or restrictive position that entheogens have a proper use and
an improper use. Coraxo argues for the latter position, which often blames
the libertarian psychedelic figureheads for prohibition and accuses them of
failing to have the proper respect they ought to have for indigenous entheogen
traditions.
Coraxo’s position is nothing new; it’s one of the two main positions held by
entheogen scholars. Many entheogen scholars make essentially the same
accusations Coraxo makes. Regardless of his particular words, Coraxo
expresses one of the standard main positions. If you criticize Coraxo’s
assertions, you must realize and admit that you are criticizing an entire
*group* of entheogenists.
There is no escape from judging, praising, and rejecting entheogen scholars.
Either you do as I do and praise the libertarian entheogenists, and reject the
restrictive entheogenists’ position; or, you do as Coraxo does and praise the
restrictive entheogenists, and reject the libertarian entheogenists’ position.
We all should admit that we hold some beliefs and reject the beliefs that are
different.
Let us not forget that Wasson’s position, while cautious and elitist and
restrictive, contradicts the bare fact that he did wildly break and flaunt the
restrictions that Sabina’s culture held. Sabina’s culture was secretive about
entheogenic mushrooms because the Catholic authoritarians persecuted entheogen
sacrament users and commanded that only users of the official church placebo
sacrament be allowed to live.
Sabina and Wasson both publically endorsed restricted use of entheogenic
mushrooms, but their actions contradict their official position. Her culture
said “restrict”, and Wasson’s elite background said “restrict”, yet look at
what they did together: they set the bird free — essentially a move pointed
relatively in the libertarian direction, moving away from their restrictive
cultural traditions.
Wasson and Sabina were effectively in cahoots, in league, to tear entheogens
away from the Catholic-enforced secrecy and hold them up in the light for all
the world to gaze upon and worship openly — even if Wasson and Sabina made
loud noises about the need to restrict and respect and not mis-use the
mushrooms.
The 20th-Century entheogen movement is not solely based on Sabina’s act of
handing the mushrooms to Wasson, but that act was the most influential channel
through which official Western civilization received entheogens from the
shamanic culture, after the Catholic officials previously rejected such
indigenous entheogen active sacraments and enforced with the sword exclusively
using the official Church’s placebo sacrament.
With a fair investigation, it turns out that Wasson, Sabina, and Leary are all
harder to categorize as restrictive or libertarian than it might initially
appear. Sabina, while yammering about mis-use, was in fact guilty of
violating her culture’s restriction against giving Wasson the mushrooms.
Wasson, despite his wish to restrict mushroom use to the elite, did in fact
popularize it.
Leary, while seeking to make entheogens universally available for all kinds of
use, did in fact adhere to a relatively serious, East-coast approach, as
opposed to Kesey’s truly libertarian anything-goes conception of unqualifiedly
legitimate, or outside-legitimacy, entheogen use.
Anyone who holds the libertarian position that all entheogen use is legit as
long as no one is harmed (see Leary’s libertarian commandments about this),
should accept that they are taking a stance against those who are more
restrictive about which use is legit and which is mis-use. Both camps can be
called “judgmental” of the other: they both actively endorse once stance and
refute the other.
It’s a huge mistake, poor-quality thinking, to sweepingly reject everything
about Leary or McKenna, or to unqualifiedly praise Leary and McKenna.
Critical thinking always assesses the good and the bad of each character. No
psychedelic figurehead is entirely good or entirely bad.
Early Rush is the single most profitable group to study for an investigation
of lyrical double-entendres in acid-oriented rock alluding to the phenomena of
the mystic altered state. This doesn’t mean their music is the best or most
enjoyable.
I have also thoroughly analyzed such encoding in other artists’ lyrics,
including Beatles, Ozzy, Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maiden, Queen, Led Zeppelin,
Cheap Trick, and Hendrix, and other post’ers have made valuable contributions
to confirm that such lyrical techniques are not rare, but rather are
*standard* for High Classic Rock, the authentic mystery-religion of our time
and the authentic Western contemporary shamanism of the late 20th Century.
No metaphor or expression is entirely accurate or entirely incorrect. Coraxo
tends to take a surprisingly rigid view that a metaphorical expression
(McKenna’s “shamanism”) is *entirely* incorrect. Sophisticated and nuanced
analysis instead sees the truth and limitation of each such expression. In
grilling Coraxo, I seek to clarify what he’s asserting, to find in what way it
might be true. Now I can consider whether we can possibly say, in Coraxo’s
sense, that Leary “abused mind-altering chemicals”. If I disagree, I might
say that such as assertion is unfair or misguided, or lacks a foundation, or
is moralistic or restrictive, but I would *not* so much defend Leary’s
“character”.
— Michael Hoffman
Egodeath.com
The Egodeath theory 