Egodeath Theory Is Based on My 1987-1997 STEM Naturalism-Compatible Theory Specification Writings

Thomas Metzinger is not a source for the Egodeath theory; he’s a later person saying some similar things but not as well, he is a well known point of reference.

Same as I treat Benny Shanon: he uses the right general approach, cog phen’y, but later than me and not going as far.

They are Later, Weak versions of parts of my theory.

I wouldn’t push or use the term “naturalism”, the way that Chris “Mr. Naturalism” Letheby does, but I’m glad to report that the Egodeath theory essentially comes from the view that it’s most useful for theorizing, to ASSUME the external world exists.

the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism;

the Theory of Psychedelic Cybernetic Eternalism;

The Egodeath theory is absolutely “naturalism”-compatible.

When you adopt the word “meditation”, you are along with it, taking on a whole huge load of poor framings. Same with “neuroscience” and “naturalism”.

I am not going to adopt their inferior wording-concept network. Or their misplaced spotlight of emphasis.

Cog Phen’y of control-model transformation is what ego transcendence is ultimately about.

That must not be explained in terms of “Cognitive” Neuro Reductionism.

Their explanatory construct of “ego dissolution” is a dead end; avoid.

Like “naturalism”, that construct is:

Not wrong, but not helpful.

I’ll stick to my own fully developed articulated lexicon, tyvm

Like the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism is essentially same as Kafei’s “the Absolute” but my revised wording is better than that, after I posted about Eternalism & Superdeterminism Sep 12(?), 2007 , same day I posted final revision of my main article.

My “determinism” and Kafie’s “the absolute” are poor terms, and I won’t be using Letheby’s “naturalism” framing. He’s too heavy handed with it.

https://youtu.be/LhWsApK-09I –

Awesomely clear theorizing, helps me toward pinpointing the limitations, of where we differ.

I don’t cheerlead for “naturalism” , but it’s becoming clear that aside from Letheby’s style of framing, my theory is coming from same place he calls ‘naturalism’.

His pushing that term that way might give people the wrong impression of his position.

This video so clear, I realized the Egodeath theory is based on what Letheby calls Naturalism though I frame things a bit differently than how Letheby says it, which is why I am committing to exclusively using my own in-house theory components and expression, and rejecting the shared neurobabble that amounts to pseudo explanation.

I put emphasis significantly differently than the Letheby crowd.

He is a beautifully clear speaker/ theorist, so despite my messy workup below, it makes it easier for me to identify where he’s lacking.

He takes MEQ too seriously (Stacean mystic exp’g🦄🌈 ) but otoh he is so explicit about maybe it being wrong.

He tries to be a very careful thinker/ theorist.

I rly think i have to record spoken critique.

Egodeath Mystery Show

It is hard to summarize and pinpoint my disputes with Letheby , even via keyboard.

i dont like Letheby saying “cite your sources”, doesnt work in my case.

Did Copernicus cite his sources? ppl speculate he based his theory on the writings of previous sun-centered cosmology theorists.

Metz 2003 is equiv Cybermonk 1988, 1996, 1997. so far as he goes.

Metzinger is not my source; i wrote & published eg :

Announce party July 1988.

hand Ms aug 1988. Draft 1 of the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence

Bubble article 1996, in print periodical Crash Collusion – i can photo

the Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence summ spec at Pric Cyb site 1997, link is below

archived website 1997. (enfolds Draft 1)

i felt as if Metz copied me later ( but he is weak at ctrl transformation )

i am citing my 1987 1988 1996 1997 writings bc i am not based on metz –

but otoh in our view these … every newage self help book in 1985 says same thing as Metz 2003. Kant already said everything about mental worldmodel , mental construct processing ,

virtual image projectiion? see Newton 1675

block-universe eternalism? see Minkowski 1906

the Egodeath theory since 1987 assumes the external world exists, as part of my STEM model construction, but …. the difference and dispute between Letheby and me is vanishingly small really; he and I both acknowledge it is an ASSUMPTION that the ext world exists.

Since 1987, I reasoned that a good model should explain in terms of suppose the ext world exists.

I avoided aserting Idealism bc not as usful a STEM explanatiry model.

another wonderfully clearly articulated specific presentation by Letheby, i can do a lot w it bc structured https://youtu.be/LhWsApK-09I –

Compare Letheby’s detailed position statement vs mine: some differences in substance, but he is more aggressive in asserting materialism, i am more agnostic re dualism

he and i are so much saying same except merely that i would not make his overly firm assertions that the external world exists

different accent, else we are same re ext world vs mental construct reamlm of mental worldmodel

thats not where our real diff is

Letheby is a cautious, conscious, careful, systematic thinker, the anti-Hatsis.

Letheby is good at theory, Hatsis has been bad at theory. like Letcher: see my Egodeath.com find Letcher.

My Disputes with Letheby

he is too certain/firm in asserting ext world exists; i model it as hypothly existing. quibble; hair splitting but i would not say it how he does.

Egodeath Theory Is Based on My STEM Naturalism Theory Specification Writings 1988 Ms, 1996 Print Article, 1997 Spec & Website

Great thing about Letheby: Unlike Letcher Hatsis, he is consistent in specifying his position & whose assertions he’s rebutting – highly structuredcand useful, easy to analyze and rebut point by point

eg i have soecific quibble w Letheby, I have always … i hate argument from “for decades Ive asserted”, but unavoidable here?

the Egodeath theory is based on my 1987 idea dev techniques notebooks starting not so much in 1986 but especially my trademark thinking modelling style befan Aprill 1987.

The historical intellectual root of the Egodeath theory is , since Apr 1987 (if not Oct 26, 1985):

I thought thusly to dev the Egodeath theory :

Mental construct processing projects virtual world and we cant know the material referent world and brain exists but for theory clarity generality it is useful to ASSUME and model interms of, the brain & material world exists and constructs mental constructs virtual world

References

link to two Comments at Prin Cyb Jan 2, 1997 – i posted spec there for just such occasion so use it, it is good approp context for my the Journal of Psychedelic Studies 2023 audience

copypaste : (to do: note Mark Hofmann pseud):

I posted this article, The Cybernetic Theory of Ego Transcendence, at the Principia Cybernetica website on Jan 2, 1997, as an Annotation on the following article:
Philosophy, Introduction
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PHILOSI.html
Title of the annotation:
Self-control cybernetics, dissociative cognition, & mystic ego death
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/PHILOSI.0.html
Final section (The Egoic and Transcendent Mental Models and Advanced Rationality):
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/PHILOSI.0.0.html – auto-date says “Jan 2, 1997”.

Bubble print published article is 1996 . CITE MY SOURCES = my writings, every self help 1985 book says same as Metz 1997-2003. by 1996 I had pers lib hundreds books incl Cog Sci but not in Aug 1988 draft. My sources in Jan 1988 or Apr 1987 = ?? Wilber, Watts, Society of Mind ai bk , Modern Physics /

I got the Einstein 1905 articles in 1988 re block-universe eternalism but rather cite the Minkowski book 2nd ed

Spring 1986 notebooks onward

Way of Zen

Eye to Eye chap essay Wilber i support that

1996 Bubble printed article in Crash Collusion (urls can likely corrob , i have the print issue and online text)

Aug 1988 handwritten Minn draft

1988 announce vid -1 hour , private but an hour of my discussing / announcing the Egodeath theory July 1988

1997 Prin Cyb site post summary is live https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/30/self-control-cybernetics-dissociative-cognition-mystic-ego-death/#About-the-Article

as Mark Hofmann there, pseud bc sensitive (not to be confused w evil M Hoffman)

1997 archive is live – where should i officially post this url so i can easiest find? i posted the link the other day (archive org around Feb 14 1997?) maybe put it at https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/12/history-of-developing-the-egodeath-theory/

but a clever cant-miss-it place is same: https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/30/self-control-cybernetics-dissociative-cognition-mystic-ego-death/#About-the-Article

My Reply to Winkelman

March 6, 2023

Hi Dr. Winkelman, 

OK thanks, I am working on the article draft as my main focus. 

 I’ve decided not to worry too much about citing all the most relevant articles, and focus on the #1 requirement: state my presentation of art & interpretation theory clearly.  

For example, I have only read a little of your work so far — relevant & clear, but have to stay on-mission.

 I’m still being pulled aside by additional Psalter discoveries daily.  

 I am inconsistent checking email, but glad to have caught yours.  

I am here in email app checking whether my latest post on Chris Letheby got posted by new WordPress Jetpack mobile app (no).  

Interesting points and limitations of focus he has, but especially look fwd to his edited book on Phil o Psych Renaissance.

Unlike Chris “Mr. Naturalism” Letheby, my focus is on high-potency advanced psychonaut control-model transformation.  

My theory (which is in the _spirit_ of Sanders’ Moving Past Mysticism) assumes that the external world exists (so I’m fully compatible with Letheby’s “naturalism”), per STEM useful theorizing, but I don’t focus on that.

I am coming to understand why Letheby focuses on “naturalism”, in his therapy context.

__________________

References section: 

I am glad that instead of describing Metzinger as a “source”, I can cite my earlier, still extant Jan. 2, 1997 Annotation at Principia Cybernetica’s Philosophy article, a relatable site for “naturalism” & my Control mental model focus & this audience. 

 I posted as pseudonym Mark Hofmann b/c sensitive topics.  

I posted that theory summary spec in 1997 for just such an occasion: priority of discovery.  It held up well (omits myth). 

Also my pre-Metzinger “Bubble of Simulation” 1996 zine article is solid.

 I might photograph the zine, but anyway the text is at both of my sites. 

 I should upload these 1996, 1997, & 2006 main articles to my Academia.edu. Along with my 64-page 2006 Plaincourault article for Journal of Higher Criticism.  

Egodeath.com & EgodeathTheory.WordPress.com

They are probably public domain art photos.  I’ll check that last.  

— Michael Hoffman, BSEE

From MW

Hey Michael

Seen the links —– sent about your work.

The Journal of Psychedelic Studies would welcome your submission.

Extensive photos are not a problem if they have permission for use or are in the public domain.

Looking forward to it

Michael

— 

Dr. Michael Winkelman, M.P.H. PhD.

BOOKS: www.michaelwinkelman.com

ARTICLES: www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Winkelman
Website: http://www.michaelwinkelman.com