I recorded a podcast today that I could maybe upload without really needing to do time-consuming production work.
But after nicely recording and speaking about the ideas, it is pretty easy then to summarize them in text here.
Mobile device composition continues in this posting and my last many postings.
Presenting an innovative theory requires being a sociopath
The sociopath requirement: you have to be a sociopath in order to deliver a radical revolutionary new paradigm that turns the world upside down, transforms everyone and transforms the world, the universe, the cosmos itself.
The radical philosophy of science per Paul Feyerabend says that the new theory doesn’t even need to give the time of day or acknowledge or even mention the old theory.
Look at the failed attempt of Roland Griffiths’ CEQ article, which produced the garbage CEQ questionnaire, that silently omits all the questions related to control.
The would-be scientific article has no discussion at all of these control-challenging questions which he lists from previous questionnaires and then silently deletes them with no scientific discussion, or no any kind of discussion, just silent censorship: this is the opposite of science.
Despite the fact of his using the science-article apparatus, but he does so very inconsistently.
There is no need to cite previous similarly garbled articles, building a garbled house out of garbled bricks.
What exactly is the purpose of citations or of giving evidence in your new science article?
Especially if it’s a radical revolutionary new paradigm, a new, much clearer, much better organization of existing ideas, requiring the transformation of each of these building block old ideas in order to make them fit together in a far more coherent and useful arrangement.
The reason to cite evidence, books, articles, and discussions is to participate in an ongoing debate.
Look at the purpose for which Panofsky recommended Brinckmann’s book to Wasson: in order to make the case that mushroom imagery does not mean mushrooms, which we describe as looking like mushroom trees.
Citing an article does not mean that the article is 100% correct or 90% correct – it may be 100% wrong but you still might want to cite it to participate in the ongoing debate and treatment of the topic.
Roland Griffiths acts like he is citing all of these previous questionnaires in order to disregard them and silently ignore their wisdom, when these previous questionnaires include questions regarding the threat of loss of control, including the word ‘marionette’ and the word ‘helpless’, which he silently censored, failing to provide any scientific discussion, or any discussion at all, of why he is deleting all of the control-related questions.
Suggestogens: What’s in a Name?
Answer: A typically lopsided Irvin take.
I cite Jan Irvin’s article that falsely claims that psychedelics are most essentially “suggestogens”.
Roland Griffiths’ 2008 article “Guidelines for Safety” has a passage against Jan Irvin’s “psychedelics are actually suggestogens” claim.
The section “hallucinogen use by indigenous cultures” is relevant to Irvin’s writings in two ways.
Griffiths talks about that we can’t use indigenous use as a model because that use sometimes includes human sacrifice and cursing each other by using psychedelics.
Irvin’s new book covers this – what does his book say positively about the positive potentials of psilocybin?
url https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanácatl-History-Mushroom/dp/1387872133/
Which of Irvin’s chapters present the positive potentials of psilocybin?
There’s a paragraph at the end of Griffith’s section debating the alleged mere suggestability basis of spiritual effects:
the association of hallucinogens with spiritual experience relates to the pharmacology of these agents rather than being based entirely on cultural suggestion.
Page 4, Roland Griffiths, 2008 article “human hallucinogen research: guidelines for safety”
Griffiths says that yes we admit that there was some spin that Huxley put spin to, and Wasson put spin to try to misrepresent mushrooms as spiritual in indigenous use.
We have evidence that psychedelics are inherently spiritual, and it’s not just an artificial claim, though they give some suggestibility, but there’s more to it than merely cultural suggestion – against Jan Irvin.
Roland Griffiths exactly makes the same point that I’ve been making a lot in some of my podcast recordings which I have not uploaded, and in my postings:
I have explained how Jan Irvin has reductionistically conflated the social abuse of psychedelics with their cognitive mechanism effects.
See Irvin’s article “Entheogens: what’s in a name?”, which is part of his article series “the secret history of magic mushrooms”, at logosmedia.com.
I cite Jan Irvin’s important articles in order to show what they contribute and what they get wrong.
That was the main point of my Allegro article, was trying to get people to treat both the contributions and limitations (ie harmful errors) of any writer, eg Allegro’s several topical views (secrecy, primitive Christians only, fertility totem, Amanita as the entheogen).
The Challenging Experiences* Questionnaire (CEQ)
*other than control-loss challenges
🏥 🍽 🐉
The CEQ article is a travesty of a scientific article.
The one-page CEQ questionnaire is bunk, because it is totally vulnerable to the dragon attack, because it refuses to have any questions regarding the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
url https://youtu.be/spm5-SXo4Do
The CEQ article fails to give the solution, which is to “surrender and submit and accept the lack of control”, as the folk psychologists tell – as Griffith recommends in the middle of his 2008 article “guidelines for safety”, and as presented throughout Michelle Janikian’s 2019 book your psilocybin mushroom companion.
The CEQ article fails to explain the jewels, 💎🏆 the treasure, transcendent knowledge; gnosis, of how to pass through the shadow 🦵🐉🚪🦵💎 to get to the other side and achieve successful completed passage transformation by grappling with and demonstrating 🗡 💨 the limits of control.
🦵🐉🚪🦵💎
Leg analysis (3:20 pm Dec 19, 2022 by Cybermonk)
Abraham’s right foot touches the ground, left foot doesn’t touch the ground. = Relying on eternalism-thinking.
Isaac’s left leg is extended, equivalent to relying on left leg, per my Mithraism legs analysis around April 2022. = Relying on possibilism-thinking.
Isaac’s right leg is bent, which means not relying on right leg.
The CEQ article fails to discuss in any way why there are questions about control-loss challenges in the earlier questionnaires.
The CEQ article fails to discuss why the control-challenging questions get deleted from the CEQ questionnaire.
The CEQ “scientific” (partly scientific, inconsistently scientific, and selectively scientific) article is a failure, it leaves a HUGE GAPING VULNERABILITY – and inability to complete the transformation game.
1/3 of the article is a gigantic gap the size of a barn door for the dragon to come in and wreak havoc on the king’s rulership of his kingdom.
Innovative theorists must be sociopaths ignoring people’s feelings
Steve Jobs does not go around asking stupid customers what their preconceptions and expectations are; he said instead here is a revolutionary computer, you should buy it, and you can decide whether to buy it or not, but I’m not here to ask you what’s your opinion of what you think that a good new computer would be.
Erik Davis’ Expanding Mind podcast uses the strategy of ignoring the stupid audience reaction of the thumb angle 👎👍
Davis just said here’s the episode: you should listen to it.
It’s up to you whether to listen to it or not, but Davis is not here to ask you what your presupposition and expectation is.
Davis is not concerned what your reaction is, because he doesn’t want to be influenced and limited by your reaction, the audience’s reaction.
It’s none of my business what your expectation for the Egodeath theory is, or your reaction to the Egodeath theory.
My role and concern is just to articulate what the theory is, that’s all; to make it available, that’s all.
Here is the Theory, here is the math formula, it is what it is, deal with it – or don’t deal with it; that’s not my problem.
If you want to know about the shadow, and if you want to enjoy going in and out of the garden of the psilocybin high-dose state, you would be well-advised to read the Egodeath theory.
Else if not, it’s your loss.
Otherwise, good luck having stable control without the Egodeath theory –
“When it’s your time, I wonder how you’ll do, you broke (the rules), you’ve been (a fool), the little doll is you, yeah” – the song “Little Dolls” by Bob Daisley, sung by Ozzy Osbourne.
Do you want victory over the dragon, or not?
Do you want to be able to touch the blade of ego death cybernetic self-transgression of control to transcend personal control, or not?
If so, the Egodeath theory provides the way on a silver platter, provides full summary clarification, efficient and usable.
This is the “genius, don’t give a damn, sociopathic” attitude required to put forth something, a radical new theory (new as far as an organized system articulated in a clear new way) that contradicts the entire world.
I do not steer the Egodeath theory based on people’s reception or expectations, although I do take advantage of all the many corroborations that are plentiful in art and in books and articles which agree with major elements of the Egodeath theory.
My job is not defined by other people, except is the Theory worded clearly so that other people are able to make sense out of it, if they desire to make sense out of it?
All of my effort, my push – I have to push hard to communicate and CLEARLY DEFINE what the theory is as clearly as possible – not to persuade people who don’t like it, or who wishfully wish that free will is the case.
I am not here for somebody’s wish fulfillment, except unless you wish for a theory of no-free-will in the peak state, and a comprehensible interpretation of religious mythology that actually makes sense – then your wish shall be fulfilled – as long as I can clearly articulate what the theory is.
I am not here to serve naysayers, I am here to serve people who positively want this no free will psilocybin eternalism theory and who wish for a clear articulation specifying what it is and relating this theory to previous art and articles and books and videos and music and podcast discussions and debates.
My job is to debate in order to specify the coherent explanatory model/ successful theory, for those who want this thing specified.
The right attitude that I have to have is double down: I double down on the clarity of my assertions.
I am immune to someone saying “I don’t like what you’re saying”, I’m immune to that, but the failure I am subject to is:
You failed to clarify what your assertion is; you failed to clarify what the model is – that is the sense in which I could potentially fail.
But if everyone dislikes the theory, that is in no way a failure, because success and failure is not defined in terms of stupid people’s reception and infantile deluded egoic wishful thinking.
Success and failure in this project is measured by my coherence and clarity of defining what the explanatory model is.
Theory articulation is not a popularity-driven matter.
There is an overlap between how clearly a theory is articulated, how nicely it is presented, and how popular the reception of that presentation is.
I will be hurt if you say that my presentation is poor.
I will not be hurt if you say:
“I don’t like what your theory is, because I wish the world to be some different way and I wish for freewill ego power to be the case, and I expect enlightenment to amplify my egoic freedom power.”
“I am not willing to buy and agree to a no-free-will system; I am only willing to purchase and agree to a freewill personal power amplification, open future, freedom branching theory of what gnosis/ enlightenment/ revelation/ purification is.”
Enjoy your seizure in the psilocybin state, but anyway, whatever, that’s your problem, your choice, your free choice of what you expect and demand from a theory of revelation and enlightenment and ego transcendence.
It is childish immature egoic innate human nature to expect ego transcendence to be all about ego inflation and ego-power amplification.
Many philosophers and religious philosophers assert (more or less) no-free-will in full support and agreement with the Egodeath theory.
The problem which I have is not a problem of people disagreeing with the theory; there are more than enough people and evidence asserting various aspects of this theory.
Their writings are just not very organized, compared to my theory, and therefore their expressions of gnosis are not effective and useful in the peak psilocybin state to maintain – and especially to transgress and transcend – personal control.
See Richard Double’s Book Meta-Philosophy and Free Will, which is cited by my main 2006 article. https://www.amazon.com/Metaphilosophy-Free-Will-Richard-Double/dp/0195107624/
Free will effectively is the case in our ordinary state experience/ praxis.
Our experience is shaped in the form of free will branching possibilities into an open future with monolithic autonomous control personal agency with the power of steering to create our future control thoughts.
You better be really good at free will and personal self control conduct, because 100% of our time is spent in that mode, except for the little blip, instantaneous momentary blip of altered-state peak psilocybin session where we ride the dragon, and touch the blade, and sacrifice child thinking, and demonstrate our ability to put personal control, effective comtrol power stability, on trial and transgress the lower way of thinking, producing a new, later, mature mental model of control levels and branching possibilities. 🐍🪨
The Egodeath theory doesn’t actually contradict the entire world (even though it might confound some peoples expectations and it’s astonishing).
The Egodeath theory is very well supported, and there is much agreement between previous garbled thinking and this new coherent, clear thinking.
My role is not to consult and ask you to tell me what the theory ought to be and what your preconceptions and presumptions and expectations are, because your expectations of the audiences expectations are garbled, inconsistent, partly wrong, and ignorant and incomplete, like Sam Harris’ book asserting no free will is incomplete and inconsistent, not mystic-state developed and mature to endure the trial test demon stration in the psilocybin peak state.
Sam Harris’ thinking remains still perishable, and not integrated, and not transformed into a viable durable stable control system for the peak psilocybin state.
The measure of inconsistency and consistency is if you are able to sacrifice the child thinking, have a wound hole of rebirth in the side, and pass through the dragon guarded gate, and ride the dragon, and transgress control transcendently, and demonstrate and put control vulnerability and stability on trial — then you are consistent, only then.
Ramesh Balsekar’s ordinary-state assertion that enlightenment is of no-free-will is incomplete: he is not able to touch the blade; he is not able to ride the dragon; he has not sacrificed child thinking and learned to rely on the non-branching possibilities model.
These authors haven’t become completed, transformed, consistent in the peak state, accommodating a closed future where your control-thoughts already exist and you don’t get to change them, you don’t have the power to change them; you merely discover what they already were created to be.
Richard Double wrote a book asserting no-free-will, but he has not learned to consciously put trust in the uncontrollable source of his control thoughts while in the peak psilocybin state.
– Cybermonk, December 19, 2022
The Egodeath theory 