Contents:
- A Function of Dose
- 3 Levels of Effects
- Valuable Scientific Disconfirmations that Support the Egodeath Theory
- 5D-ASC: 2000 or 2006?
- Prediction: Negative = Non-mystical in SOCQ
- The ‘Ineffable’ Axiom vs. Already Explained by the Egodeath Theory
- References
A Function of Dose
One interesting finding that’s consistently reported in the psychometrics articles: mystic & challenging effects of psychedelics “are a function of dose”.
This confirms Max Freakout’s distinction between medium vs. high dose.
The really really really intense altered state =! moderate dose.
3 Levels of Effects
placebo nondrug or low-dose reports –> no mystic or challenging effects
medium-dose reports –> moderate mystic or challenging effects
high-dose reports –> intense mystic and challenging effects
Valuable Scientific Disconfirmations that Support the Egodeath Theory
Further supporting the Egodeath theory are these results from the science of psychedelics psychometrics questionnaires:
1) Psychometrics shows that non-drug meditation is bunk: non-drug meditation produces small mystical effects, rather than big mystical effects (like Psilocybin does embarrassingly well), against everybody’s prejudiced assumption.
This I call the Jordan Peterson objection, because he rebutted Roland Griffiths about this point – see the video.
2) Psychometrics shows that the important mystical effects are largely negative and not exclusively positive, against everybody’s prejudiced assumption.
This I call the Charles Stang objection, because he rebutted Roland Griffiths about this point – see the video.
The funny thing about both of these scientific findings is that neither of these prejudiced assumptions were intended to be put on trial through scientific testing and critique.
These were unconscious, culturally biased, foundational sacred cows that were never intended to be subjected to scientific critical testing.
1+1=3 😇🐮🙌
This posting is based on voice recordings today (December 31, 2022) working up these ideas.
Inadvertently, psychedelics psychometrics science shows that we need to move the center of the universe away from non-drug meditation to instead Psilocybin as the standard of measure.
The continued attempt to make non-drug meditation the standard of reference is not working!
Non-drug meditation does not provide a usable, successful data collection central point of reference.
Only Psilocybin has proved able to serve as the usable, reliable, repeatable, instense , detectable, scientifically measurable standard of reference for reporting mystic effects.
Inadvertently, the science of psychometrics shows that we need to change the model of mystic experiences, move the center of the universe away from Walter Stace’s 1961 unicorns & rainbows FANTASY of imagining, an outsiders’ expectations of what is mystic experiencing, to instead, embracing and emphasizing challenging experiences.
It turns out that the challenging experiences are the whole gateway to the proper conception of mystical experiences.
The stone that the builders rejected – the question for which Roland Griffith accidentally deliberately overlooked, the negative challenging effects, turn out to be the real nature of mystical experiencing, more at the center than the beginners low-dose positive effects.
Beginners’ low-dose positive-only mystic effects are not the true main effects.
The true main nature of mysticism it is not low-dose I had a warm glow feeling — this is beginner low-dose only.
Max Freakout & I & the psychometrics researchers & hi dose enthusiast Kalindi Yi & Kafei all agree that the interesting high-traction contrast discussion is medium-dose vs. high-dose.
Our existing data collection of placebo non-drug mystical effects is already covering the low-dose effects, and so we are not interested in any more coverage of low-dose but we all agree that contrasting medium and high dose is the most interesting and profitable.
It is a most profitable contrast and discussion and research to compare medium-dose vs. high-dose.
Low-dose is not of interest, except that it is already represented perfectly well by placebo non-drug questionnaire responses.
We have already invested in low-dose research, and so far as we already have invested in collecting placebo non-drug mystical effects reports.
The psychometrics testers have concluded that there’s no meaningful difference between the responses provided by non-drug experiencers versus by low-dose; you can’t tell the two apart by the psychedelics psychometrics questionnaires.
The low-dose responses simply get mixed in with the placebo non-drug responses; there’s no way to tell them apart — that’s the data conclusion.
The so-called, would-be “mystical” questionnaires are wrong, and they are disconfirmed, because the actual nature of mystical experience is centered around the challenging effects.
___
I will define CEQ version 3: it will not be my correction of version 2 by adding Control challenge effects questions;
CEQv3 will be another posting, where I base it on the 64 or a few more questions from version 1 of their “initial item pool”, plus good categories added that will be the real version 3 of CEQ that I will define. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/28/how-to-redeem-the-ceq-add-a-control-category-and-the-surveys-questions-about-experiencing-the-threat-of-loss-of-control/
The initial version of CEQ (the 64-question initial item pool) gets an A-.
CEQ[64] lacks question 54 (“I was afraid to lose my self-control”), and it lacks categories.
Roland Griffiths’ so-called “final” version of the CEQ, CEQ[26] is entirely bunk; it gets an F grade.
The “final” CEQ lacks any Control-challenges questions, it (& the initial version too) failed to add 8 of the “Unpleasant” high-level category questions, which 11-Factors includes, and it lacks a Control-challenges category, and it is packed filled with 27% (7/26) duplicate questions, senselessly.
The result reads like a bizarre mockup, not something serious.
My draft mockup Eternalism and Control questionnaire (ECQ) is more serious than the “final” wtf CEQ questionnaire delivered by Roland Griffiths, and it’s no wonder that he’s getting intense pushback from the expert on/ the historian of mysticism Charles Stang, and from Jordan Peterson.
The CEQ article in fact presents two different CEQs.
I need to literally have a separate webpage covering the first CEQ and a different webpage covering the second CEQ ; they are entirely different.
There are multiple versions of every questionnaire, and this is confusing and complicated.
There are mystical experience questionnaire version one MEQ43 , versus MEQ30 second version; they deleted probably 13 negative effects questions to get their new and improved “PARSIMONIOUS” [ie delete all the negative experiences] mystical experience questionnaire which was driven by Mr. Unicorns and Rainbows, Roland Griffiths.
🦄💨🌈 📊🔬
I disagree with the way that Rolland Griffith (experimental psychedelic scientist) describes and discusses mystic experiencing.
I disagree with the way that Charles Stang (Historian of mysticism) describes mystic experiencing.
I don’t think either of them have a reality-based model of the nature of mystic experiencing.
The other posting will be on defining version 3 of CEQ. Challenging experiences questionnaire. by Roland Griffiths.
I have described that in the present posting well enough for now.
I might go ahead and post a starter posting of CEQ version 3, to give an outline of what that posting will contain.
The strategic lineage of CEQ questionnaire is: gathering a subset of [most of] “all” of the challenging questions from the three main questionnaires, which includes SOCQ minus the “mystical” questions (which are probably exclusively positive).
Rick Strassmann n-n-DMT-based HRS questionnaire. example his category on volition really is focused on volition effects from quick DMT.
Dittrich’s 1975 APZ/ 1994 OAV/ 2006 5D-ASC questionnaire (& then 11-Factors) is for the purpose of comparing effects from psychedelic versus other ways of inducing altered states.
5D-ASC: 2000 or 2006?
An unsolved contradiction is that Studerus’ 2010 11-factors article states that questionnaires filled in starting in 2000 used 5D-ASC , but questionnaires filled in before 2000 used OAV questionnaire –
But the official year in which 5D was published was 2006, not 2000, so I don’t know if it’s true or if it’s a mistake in their article, that we have filled-in 5D questionnaires from the year 2000+, when the 5D-ASC system was not published until 2006 (German), 2010 (English).
Maybe in 2000-2005 they used an unpublished prototype of 5D-ASC in development, I guess. 🤷♂️
Prediction: Negative = Non-mystical in SOCQ
Prediction: If you look at the questions in SOCQ which are not part of some version of the mystical experience questionnaire MEQ, I predict that all of the “non-mystical” questions will all be negative effects.
Studerus 2010 (11-Factors revision of OAV questionnaire) defines Ocean OB & Visionary VR dimensions effects as “positive … therefore … mystical” and Angst Dread Unpleasant effects per DED dimension effects as “negative … therefore … bad trip [instead of mystical]”.
The real, authentic questionnaire mystical experiences questionnaire is the entire SOCQ, emphatically including all of the challenging, negative effects.
Not only the shrinking subset of the 43 MEQ questions or later Griffiths’ 30 MEQ mystical experience questionnaire subset of questions.
Roland Griffiths actually does get one very important thing right: adding a Grief category of psychedelics effects questions.
Mystic effects include existential depression, and this tanked Terrence McKenna and caused him to covertly stop using mushrooms altogether, because of an existential meaning crisis.
url https://youtu.be/9nnGtB-PSw4
The false model of mystical effects is the exclusively positive questions which are called the “mystical experience questionnaire” and that’s the false one.
Yesterday in voice recordings for Egodeath Mystery show, I asked a question which I could not answer:
What is my best-case wish of what I wish that the psychometrics would find?
What are the findings that I wish to see from psychedelic psychometrics science?
Psychometric science shows that you don’t get mystic effects from non-drug meditation.
Like Jordan Peterson objected and pointed out, science proves what I have been asserting, that non-drug meditation contemplation fails to deliver mystical experiencing.
Mystic effects from nondrug meditation are scientifically proved to be small rather than big, even though our society has an intensive prejudice that takes it as a matter of doctrine, a given from God from on high, it is simply held by everybody.
We all (baselessly) agree (ie imagine and fantasize) that mystic effects from non-drug meditation are big.
Unfortunately, the science data from psychometrics questionnaire data accidentally and inadvertently disproves this prejudiced assumption premise.
Our science data which we were trying to deploy in order to test psilocybin accidentally subjected our golden calf idol to scientific testing, and it was actually our idol, non-drug meditation failed us.
We never meant to subject it to actual serious sincere scientific testing.
We did not intend to test our shared prejudiced claim, our assumption, our faith-based assumption that meditation of course is the gold standard that produces strong, impressive, big mystic effects.
Run a science test:
Does Psilocybin produce big Mystic effects like meditation, or does it produce small mystic effects, in contrast with non-drug meditation?
Science’s answer:
Psilocybin produces big mystic effects.
Non-drug meditation produces small mystic effects. An UNEXPECTED SIDE-EFFECT/ side-finding that we weren’t trying to subject to serious critique!
Oh no, we accidentally put to the scientific test — our scientific testing backfired; neither camp expected this finding, because neither camp could even imagine subjecting our prejudiced assumption to critical testing!
Science data accidentally showed that it’s not a question of whether is psilocybin an imposter, but now the tables have turned, and the question is:
Is non-drug meditation the real imposter, the failed, attempted phony ersatz simulated alternative nontraditional method of accessing mystic experience?
This is the Jordan Peterson challenge question that he instantly retorted to Roland Griffiths.
The moment that Griffiths said the old tired invented construct, “meditation could/ can/ might/ may produce the exact same effects of psilocybin”, the moment he uttered that, Jordan Peterson instantly shot back:
No, the data does not support your repeated assertion; the data contradicts your repeated assertion (tale, narrative).
Your argument has no legs to stand on, it collapses; it fails.
You need to acknowledge the failure of your prejudiced assumption about meditation, putting it on a pedestal, with no basis to do so.
Your own scientific data, from the science that you keep trying to leverage, shows that it’s the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue strategically.
You’re trying to strategically argue that psilocybin produces big measurable mystic effects just like meditation produces big measurable mystic effects.
But you showed the reverse: you showed that the assumption that meditation produces big mystic effects is unscientific and countered by the data.
Only Psilocybin, and not non-drug meditation, produces big, intense, reliable strong vivid mystic effects.
So why do you persist in this baseless argument that psilocybin produces a strong big effect just like meditation produce a strong big effect, when the latter is unscientific and is disproved by your own science method?
Are we now to excuse the failure and overlook the failure of science to be able to corroborate the alleged big mystic effects of meditation, while at the same time, we leverage science to demonstrate that we can measure Psilocybin mystic effects?
If the science of psychedelic psychometrics is reliable and useful for measuring the big mystic effects from Psilocybin, how come this exact very same science is completely incapable of detecting any measurable mystic effects from nondrug meditation?
How can you argue that scientific measurements show that the effects are both big from Psilocybin and from nondrug meditation, when in fact when you go to demonstrate that, what you find instead is a complete asymmetry — not symmetry.
Your basic argument collapses.
Your own psychometric science proves that non-drug meditation produces small effects, not big effects, so why do you keep saying that meditation “can/ could/ might/ and may” produce the exact same effects as psilocybin, when your data shows the opposite!
Are we supposed to respect your data and method, or not?
“You are being unscientific, and you are contradicting yourself, Roland Griffiths” says Jordan Peterson to him in the video interview.
We can conclude, as I have concluded/ asserted on the basis of theory coherence, that all of the mystic experiencing in the archive of the history of mysticism comes from Psilocybin.
NOT from the fictional fantasy imaginary chimera construct fabricated by clueless academics, their foundational assumption that the sun revolves around the earth.
They have falsely constructed their imagined fantasy, “the traditional nondrug methods of the mystics”.
Just like Jordan Peterson objected to Roland Griffiths repeatedly asserting that meditation “can could may and might” produce the exact same effects as Psilocybin.
This is very much not what they ever intended to argue or test or prove.
They are now defensively on their heels, trying to explain why their pet, advocated non-drug meditation fails to produce the exact same effects as Psilocybin – and that’s the opposite of what they were preferring to argue and assert and test.
They want to tell the story that psilocybin affects failed to measure up to meditation affects, or succeeded feebly – but they are always, ever forced to argue the exact opposite : they are forced to explain why meditation does not produce any scientifically measurable mystic effects and fails to produce the exact same effects as psilocybin.
This is the reverse of what how they wanted to frame the argument.
They wanted to make non-drug meditation the center of the cosmos; they wanted to make the reference point the effects which meditation produces.
But the problem is there are no such effects that are measurable.
We have every indication from our science data questionnaire psychometrics collection that there is no such thing as mystical effects non-drug induced.
This is not what they expected, and this is disconfirming something that, a premise that they were not even trying to test.
This shows how great science is, but the scientists have yet to acknowledge this disconfirming which occurred.
Jordan Peterson points out to the scientist role in Griffiths you need to acknowledge that your premise that you base your whole argument strategy on this premise of “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics” is contradicted by your own data.
You keep arguing on the basis that psilocybin produces the same mystical effects as meditation produces, when your own data shows that there are no such effects from meditation, but only from psilocybin.
The effects for meditation are so pathetically weak and nonexistent and unmeasurable, that you cannot defend there being any such effects.
You cannot take zero effects and try to spin that as being mild and moderate and small but venerable, as if no problem.
You’re coming up completely empty-handed; you’ve got no evidence, you have a loud lack of any evidence for meditation producing mystic effects, whether positive or negative.
Jordan Peterson does a good job of expressing himself in terms of efficiency and efficacy and strength and reliability of the effects – big effects (efficacy) vs small effects.
Peterson shuts out this bad tired move that the meditation advocates do of trying to say that there are vanishingly small effects.
Meditation totally works great and is the reference standard which Psilocybin struggles to match — except nondrug meditation only works for one out of 1 million people (who is already schizophrenic) and it only works after 60 years of meditation, and it only produces weak effects.
The fact that non-drug meditation doesn’t provably measurably work for anybody just proves that everybody’s doing meditation wrong — but nondrug placebo meditation totally works great and produces totally big effects — except that it produces them so microscopically small effects and after such a long duration that it’s completely not measurable by science.
Zen Master Brad flips the goal post as extremely as a Thomas Hatsis:
You argue a very assertive assertion making gigantic promises, and then when you are challenged, you retreat to the other goal post, the exact opposite end of the field, where are you now claim that you’re not making any assertions about any effects that are at all measurable at all.
The moment someone stops challenging you , you immediately revert to making your aggressive firm assumptions talking big talk all day and night about the traditional non-drug methods of the mystic meditators/ contemplators.
Then when you’re challenged, you retreat to the opposite goal post at the opposite extreme end of the field, and say no I wasn’t asserting that there any detectable affects at all , and we can only measure it by five years later, does your neighbor say that you have good conduct of life? and if so , then we know that you had a mystic experience.
Then when you stop challenging Zen master Brad, he instantly reverts to the other goal post at the other end of the field , making his massive usual assertions about “the traditional non-drug methods of mystics ” which “exactly produce the exact same effects as psilocybin except way better and way more permanent”.
Then when you challenge him, he flips to the other goal post, and says “No, I never claimed that meditation has any detectable affects at all”.
And so on it goes back-and-forth, flipping the goalposts.
And Roland Griffiths is trying to sustain his flipping of the goal post, despite his own data.
Griffiths’ own psychometric scientific questionnaires show that there are no measurable mystical effects from non-drug meditation placebo ingesting, and yet he keeps on flipping back to his, reverting back to his usual canard, “the traditional nondrug methods of the Mystics” “which produces big mystical effects” – except that measurably is proved that they do not produce any measurable, big mystical effects.
Which is it you’re being inconsistent, you’re contradicting yourself, rolin Griffiths: you keep saying that you’re based on scientific measurements, but then you keep on discarding your own scientific measurements, and you persist in claiming falsely that your lab placebo non-drug meditation produces mystical effects, even though your questionnaire data prove that non-drug meditation does not deliver them (in any significant amount), and yet you keep on acting like you have that data – and Jordan Peterson pointed him out point blank on this self-contradiction.
Here was the intended set-up: we would measure whether psilocybin had small or big mystical effects, compared to meditation, which is assumed produces big mystical effects.
But what happened instead, what we accidentally disconfirmed, and what the scientific data actually proved instead of what we expected, This is the big versus small effects argument:
We found that meditation produces only small effects and psilocybin produces big effects , when what the naysayers expected to find was that psilocybin produces only small effects and meditation produces big effects.
But we found the exact opposite of that and that’s not what we wanted to test or find.
We either expected and desire —
One camp expected to find that psilocybin produces small mystic effects and meditation produces big mystic effects.
And the other camp wanted to find that psilocybin produces big mystic effects like meditation produces big mystic effects.
What the data found instead the experimental scientific data instead found – something that neither camp was expecting to find –
Per the radical Maximal Egodeath Theory, they found that psilocybin produces big mystical effects and that meditation produces small mystical effects (!!) 😱😵
This is a great way to argue to describe my position about the inefficiency of meditation.
This language that I just thought of big effects versus small effects, this is perfect for we thought that we could maybe do faultfinding with Psilocybin by saying grudgingly saying along with the Catholic apologist RC Zaehner (Mysticism Sacred & Profane), we thought we would grudgingly say we reluctantly admit that psilocybin does have some small mystical effects but they pale compared to the big mystical effects produced measurably and provably by “the non-drug traditional methods of the mystics”
Everybody was set up on the shared false assumption, the whole debate was set up so that both camps expected non-drug mystic effects are assumed (they agree to pretend) to be big and measurable and reproducible, but the argument was entirely regarding whether psilocybin would have the same big effects as meditation, or would only produce small effects
We found was the exact opposite, contradicting the shared assumption of both camps : we found that psilocybin has big effects and we found that meditation has small effects, which was not a possibility that either camp had considered.
This demands a massive 2-part paradigm shift.
We need to move the center of the universe away from the earth to the sun.
We need to move the center of the universe away from Amanita onto Psilocybin.
We need to move the center of the universe from nondrug meditation to Psilocybin.
No longer are we testing whether psilocybin has strong (big) or merely weak (small) mystical effects.
Suddenly that’s not what’s at issue; what’s at issue is what we did not expect to be at issue.
We are now subjecting meditation to judgment.
We expected to subject psilocybin to judgment but accidentally in advertently science did its job.
Science revealed that our fundamental premise was wrong, and now suddenly the tables have turned, and now it is non-drug meditation which is being subjected to judgment by scientific data — and coming up very short and very small.
You claim to be based on science, but when the science contradicts you, you keep on retaining and reverting to your same non-scientific set of assumptions.
The other accidental, awkward disconfirmation is when Jordan Peterson pushed back against Roland Griffiths, saying:
Why do you keep asserting as a fundamental component of your strategy, you keep on referring to “the mystical effects from non-drug meditation”, and yet the data don’t confirm that component of your strategic argument in favor of Psilocybin.
Your argument that you keep on sticking to and you keep on putting forth the same argument as zig zag Zen book which is based on special issue of Tricycle Buddhism magazine about “can fake & novel psychedelics simulate the real methods of the Eastern mystics?”
The same as the argument in the “special issue on Ersatz, Novel Psychedelics” of Gnosis magazine.
Psychedelics scientists (Walter Pahnke 1962, Griffiths 2006) who are trying to use psychedelic psychometrics science to prove that the mystical effects from psilocybin are the same (as big as) the mystical effects from non-drug meditation.
“Let us measure psilocybin mystic effects to see if they are big, like they are for meditation.”
You have run into, you have accidentally disconfirmed your fundamental premise that underlies the strategy that you’re trying to argue, that you’re trying to assert.
You intended to use the psychometrics questionnaire data to prove that you cannot disconfirm the efficacy of psilocybin to match non-drug meditation mystical effects.
But disconfirmation did not work the way that you intended it to work you accidentally disconfirmed the canard, the false notion , the unexamined premise underlying your whole strategic argument.
The premise that there exist such a thing as mystical non-drug meditation effects, you accidentally tested and disproved – you accidentally disconfirmed your assumption that you were not even trying to test.
You accidentally disconfirmed the assumption that non-drug meditation produces measurable, big mystic effects.
Jordan Peterson emphatically pushed back against Roland Griffiths this way.
Griffiths kept on repeatedly returning to the same strategic argument that the data measurement from these psychometric questionnaires proves that psilocybin produces as much mystic affects as non-drug meditation.
The result was the opposite of expected, so how do you keep making the same strategic argument, when your science demonstrated that there is no such thing as measurable, big mystic effects from non-drug meditation?
Science has successfully done its job by confounding our expectations.
We have accidentally proved in two different ways that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but rather, that the earth revolves around the sun, just as I have called to move the center of the universe of entheogen scholarship from Amanita/ Ergot to Psilocybin.
And move the center of the universe from Eleusis and Plaincourault to Canterbury.
We have falsely held as the center of the universe, these two unexamined premises that are taken for granted uncritically, the unconscious assumption that:
Mystics, the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics meditators/ contemplators.
Mystical effects are only positive, and are not negative effects.
Any challenging effect that you have is by definition not a part of mystic experiencing.
In the September 2020 interview where Roland Griffiths talks through his slide deck which is based on these two false premises which have been disconfirmed by his own scientific measurements instruments, psychedelics psychometrics questionnaires.
Griffiths has yet to acknowledge that both of his premises (he did not mean to test and subject to questioning these convention-founded sacred cows), both of his premises have been disconfirmed by his own experimental data.
This is pointed out by Jordan Peterson regarding efficacy of non-drug meditation to produce mystic effects.
It was pointed out by Charles Stang regarding the false assumption and definition underlying the entire project, the claim that we have a scientific basis in Walter Stace’s 1960 list of the exclusively positive mystical effects.
I find it tedious to go over that list of, that very all too well-known list of positive mystic effects, that were very unimpressive to me in 1985, which is why I created the Egodeath theory instead.
Your description of mystical effects is quite unhelpful and irrelevant to the problems that I am investigating:
What specifically is the nature of ego transcendence; what is the summary, in a useful, comprehensible summary, and the mystics are not delivering that.
The ‘Ineffable’ Axiom vs. Already Explained by the Egodeath Theory
I notice that their paradigm includes very prominently the ineffability premise.
I have already firmly disapproved the ineffability premise.
There is nothing ineffable about mystic revelation. A worthless word.
Language is fully adequate to describe intense mystical experience, just as much as language is effective for anything else.
So a part of what is being disconfirmed by science is the false assertion of ineffability.
There is a conflict, in effect, there is a conflict between the premise of ineffability versus the existence of the Egodeath theory as a successful explanatory framework.
One group of people makes a set of arguments using a set of Premises:
Roland Griffiths asserts that 25% one of the four main components of mystical experience by definition according to him, is ineffability.
The same set of people also falsely asserts the traditional nondrug methods of the mystics which can be measured in the laboratory meditation of placebo non-drug meditators — except that it cannot be measured, they found.
By using these psychedelics psychometrics questionnaires as a scientific instrument, there are no measurable mystic effects from non-drug meditation.
And they were planning on, they were counting on building their whole argument in favor of Psilocybin on the implicit, prejudice-founded premise that there are measurable mystical effects from non-drug meditation — but that side of the equation was inadvertently disconfirmed.
Just as we say of Zen Master Brad, when you push him and demand evidence, and you demand results, and you say where are the damned results, and then he backtracks and says there are no measurable results from our meditation.
Roland Griffiths talks routinely all the time about measurable effects, we need to make a system to measure the mystic effects from Psilocybin, and we will show that it matches the measured effects that we measure from nondrug meditation mystic effects.
But then they ran into disconfirming the wrong thing that was not supposed to be disconfirmed, and it pulls out their legitimacy argument strategy out from underneath them.
Yet they keep making the same unsustainable argument, they keep on putting forth this disconfirmed argument, this line of persuasion that fails and does not work, as Jordan Peterson pointed out to Griffiths.
May 10 2021 https://youtu.be/NGIP-3Q-p_s
at 55:00 Charles Stang pushback, link to transcription like my last post:
sep 18 2020: https://youtu.be/6g2PS_yp-nQ
Poor Roland Griffiths first and September 2020 Charles Stang shows that his scientific research is based on a bunk foundation of exclusively positive mysticism.
And then in May 2021, similarly, Jordan Peterson pushes back on Roland Griffiths, showing that his scientific data results did not confirm or disconfirm that psilocybin mystic effects match non-drug mystic methods, but rather, they disconfirmed the canard, the unexamined presupposition: “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystics, meditators/ contemplators”.
For strategy of clarity, I adopt the radical maximal extremist simplified simple model that mystic experiences come from Psilocybin.
The source of mystics’ experiences is Psilocybin.
This has been a profitable, productive basic model.
Roland Griffiths keeps on telling his narrative that we must accept the legitimacy of Psilocybin because our questionnaire psychometrics science data result proves that the mystical effects from Psilocybin match the mystical effects which are reported through our questionnaire by placebo-ingesting non-drug meditators.
Roland Griffiths contradicts himself because he says that their questionnaires failed to measure any mystical effects from nondrug meditation.
Yet Griffiths continues in his song and dance line of argumentation that the mystical effects from Psilocybin match the traditional nondrug methods of the Mystics meditators contemplator’s which we measure by our psychometrics Science questionnaire — except that we cannot measure any of them.
See Roland Griffiths 2012 “validation of the mystical experience questionnaire” article.
What do I wish ideally that psychometrics data would prove correct in the Egodeath theory?
The psychedelic psychometrics data indicates that there are no mystical effects from nondrug meditation measurable, except to prove that those effects are small and pathetic, very opposite of the assumed bragging posturing cocky confident claim that the gold standard of reference by which everything should be measured is non-drug meditation.
That bias is unsustainable when subjected to probing and testing and scientific data; the popular premise collapses, it cannot sustain the critical investigations of science.
The claim to put non-drug meditation on a pedestal as a gold standard of efficacy is disapproved by the scientific data and the scientific method.
Jordan Peterson pointed out it is now officially unscientific to claim that meditation produces big mystic effects.
THE DATA DOESNT SUPPORT THE POPULAR PREMISE THAT MEDITATION PRODUCES THE EXACT SAME EFFECTS AS PSILOCYBIN.
The data shows not that meditation produces big effects and psilocybin produces small effects, but the exact opposite: that psilocybin produces measurable, repeatable, intense big mystic effects, and that meditation (which was not supposed to be under trial, subjected to critique!) was revealed to — the emperor wears no clothes, and meditation is demonstrated by scientific measurement to produce only merely small mystic effects.
We get repeated, the data repeatedly and reliably shows that meditation fails to produce strong, big, reliable mystic effects.
Neither camp expected to find the latter; it was simply taken for granted that as an axiom that’s not subject to scientific testing, the axiom that it is a given that meditation produces the big effects.
And it is simply given as a fact that mystic experiencing is exclusively positive.
These axioms, these foundations were never thought of as something that would be subjected and humbled and reduced to being tested and probed and critically questioned by science.
We did not mean to test whether meditation’s mystic effects are big or small; we simply assumed as a matter of principle that we are to all agree that mystic effects are big.
This is a social cultural biased convention, this is not scientific.
This is not put forth as a scientific proposition that is expected to be tested, but rather the dogma, the doctrine that meditation constitutes and delivers the gold standard measure of reference,
We* were confused because we thought we were asserting a statement of fact, but in fact, we were all asserting a shared bias, a shared prejudice, an unconscious unexamined premise and foundational axiom.
*”we” here excludes me; I never for a moment bought– in fact I rejected my father’s drug-free newage counseling, I thought doesn’t add up to much.
We never realized that this is just a social construction, “the traditional non-drug methods of the mystic meditators/ contemplators”.
And when we held this prejudice, this social shared assumption, which we never expected to subject to testing, but then we created a science of psychometrics, and we confidently took it for granted that meditation produces big mystic effects, and that we would then measure whether Psilocybin produces big effects like meditation of course does, or whether it merely produces small effects, in contrast to what meditation is known to produce (as any meditation salesman can and does tell you).
But in the MEQ validation article 2012, Roland Griffiths’ data accidentally revealed that our shared social construct prejudice, the assumption that meditation delivers big mystical effects, was inadvertently disproved, and his questionnaire psychometric science was never intended or expected to show that result.
…. con’t from earlier above:
But those actually turn out to be unmeasurable.
Charles Stang pointed out it is now officially unscientific to claim that mystic experiencing is exclusively positive.
We need to move the center of the universe from the false model of {exclusively positive mystic experiencing, which is actually low-dose beginner experience} to instead center it around {negative mystic experiencing, which is high-dose advanced effects}.
Including the real type of transformation.
they’re always talking, all day and all night they’re talking about measuring mystical experiences in terms of their effects on your mundane, ordinary-state life afterwards.
We shall measure whether you had a mystical experience by asking your neighbor five years later, is your mundane conduct of life good, and improved from the jerk that you used to be before the mystic experience?
When people falsely try to measure, when Roland Griffiths attempts to measure whether you had a mystic experiencing, by looking to your ordinary conduct of life and your improved mundane life as evidence that you really did have a mystic experience, this is the wrong type of long-term transformation that they are looking for.
The genuine mystic experience, advanced multiple sessions, experienced and high-dose, and advanced (redosing / “secondary” “booster” dose forming a trapezoid dual mountain intensity curve) — Max Freakout’s “really really really intense” , powerful, advanced high-dose mystic experiences, repeated over 10 sessions, produces a transformation effect which is not their ordinary-state based, expected type of transformation effect.
The actual long term effect is transformation of your mental world model about time and control and possibilities branching.
Mental model transformation from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
References
Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin
Frederick Barrett, Mathew “No Buddha Statues” Johnson, Roland Griffiths
2015
Search: https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Validation+of+the+revised+Mystical+Experience+Questionnaire%22
Pubmed url: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26442957/ – for PDF, click “FREE Full text PMC” button in upper right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pahnke
— Cybermonk Dec 31, 2022
The Egodeath theory 