The Egodeath Revolution and related fields

Psychology, Religion, Philosophy, Cog Sci

Cog Sci is boring and sucks and is irrelevant. CSReligion is annoyingly empty of relevance.

I’m focused on enabling Cog Sci to not be boring and suck and be irrelevant.

The Egodeath theory is near Cog Sci, but very different in style and focus, as is effective and not reductionist to the wrong domain and approach/ style.

The Egodeath theory has its own domain and style of explanation, lexicon, has its uniquenesses, compared to Science, Religion, Cognitive Science.

What makes something a science is how much that field is like the paradigmatic model, which is set by the Egodeath theory – extract what Science is, from that.

The Egodeath theory is its own standard for judging the real nature of being scientific, for the Egodeath theory.

The ideal type of science for the Egodeath theory.

Explain the ego death and transformation climax.

Explain myth as analogies for that, per Douglas Hofstadter: Analogies are how the mind works.

I have an offsetting, arm’s length competitive stance against Neuroscience.

The worst is Cognitive Neuroreductionism.

Reductionism is like when you write a hyper detailed very impressive CEQ article and questionnaire, but get rid of any discussion or questions you gathered about the main challenging effect of control transformation, experiencing the threat of loss of control.

Roland Griffiths’ Sneaky Removal of ‘Control’ Questions

HERE BE DRAGONS 🐉 drop the science and run away

Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) except without the word ‘control’, which you silently omitted without any comment, sciencey or normal.

The CEQ covers manic depression, but doesn’t contain the word ‘control’.

The Griffiths articles have misinformed Oregon Health Authority.

He’s driven by PR posing as “science”, it’s a bluff, to hide deletion of loss of control.

Threat of loss of control wasn’t in your agenda to deal with, so you removed it, as a defect that you needed to ignore.

You didn’t even discuss, didn’t even mention, why you left out the most notorious challenging effect, the threat of loss of control.

There is a huge gap in the CEQ, it chooses not to include any questions about control at all, it CEQ stays well away from the dragon, much less focus pointedly on the experiencing threat of loss of control.

“We found reports of control dragons infesting the earlier questionnaires –

what should we say about our omitting these defective question topics as off-limits for scienticific discussion, sales, and marketing PR?”

“Just say nothing about the bad questions, about defective control, & fill in the empty gap with lots of numbers and formal detailed writeup.

“Throw in a lot of extra math noise and posturing of formality to hide our quiet corrective deletion of the control questions – we dont wanna go there.”

This is a very sciency paper – or would have been, had it discussed

THE UN ATTRACTIVE TRUTH

Griffiths, what’s your flimsy pseudo-science excuse cover story for omitting the control questions you gathered. CHICKEN??

🐥

Peterson Calls BS on Griffith

Roland Griffiths is really called out hard by Jordan Peterson, who instantly calls BS on Griffiths’ bunk vapid claim that meditation could/ can/ might/ may produce the same effects as psilocybin.

Jordan Peterson calls out self-contradiction by Griffiths.

Griffiths:

“Psilocybin is better than anything else.

“Professional meditators are blown away by Psilocybin.

“Meditation can/ could/ might/ may produce the same effects as Psilocybin.”

Peterson instantly called Griffiths on his contradictions about efficacy.

Stang Calls BS on Griffith

Roland Griffiths is really called out hard by Charles Stang in video 1 in the Harvard Psychedelics series.

Charles Stang reports to Griffiths:

Your sanitized, whitewashed pseudo “mystic experience” is made-up, lopsided, cherrypicked, New Age tripe.

What you are mis-calling “mystical experience” fails to match the reported data, of the shadow.

Are you afraid of loss of control? of the PR?

that people will be under intense threat of loss of control

that the dragon will eat your clinic

🏥 🐉

What fate awaits your clinic, lying ahead on the worldline? 🤔🤔

I see an ARMY OF DRAGON DEMONS beckoning on the non-branching path ahead.

Science Character Brought by the Egodeath Theory

Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion should be more like the Egodeath theory in character than like dullsville irrelevant ordinary-state CSR.

PCSR needs to take its cues from the Egodeath theory not from the sorry CSR approach.

Reductionism of one field to another is the most unscientific approach.

Reductionism of the field to a field which it is not, is the most unscientific approach.

My 1987 topic: Domain Dynamics

Fields affected by the Egodeath revolution

Psychedelic Cognitive Science

Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion

Psychedelic Philosophy

Psychedelic Psychology of Religion

Psychedelic Eternalism

Psychedelic Gnosis and Mysticism

Psychedelic Western Esotericism

Psychedelic Religion

Psychedelic Mythology

Cognitive Science of Religion

Psilocybin Eternalism

Cognitive Science

Book Titles

Ruck’s book title recommendation:

Secrets of Psychedelic Cognitive Science of Religion 🍄🍄

Secrets of Psychedelic Mythology 🍄🍄

Carl “Dr. Secret Amanita” Ruck 🤫🍄

Carl A. P. Ruck, Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck

🍄 John Rush 🍄

Blotter Art Book

Ruck’s cover design for Erik Davis’ new book:

______

Secrets of Blotter Art 🍄🍄

🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄

🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄

🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄

🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄

🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄🍄

______

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.QkxA4FntxDUmcG8Y4FeHQgAAAA?pid=ImgDet&dpr=3