Cybermonk 5:27 a.m. March 22, 2023
The Egodeath Mystery Show is working-session idea development. You are on the leading edge of altered state theory.
Cybermonk 11:42 p.m. March 21, 2023
Contents:
- Download Link
- Filenames
- Song Titles
- Content/Timestamps Ep235a
- Content/Timestamps Ep235b
- Voice Transcription During Recording, Caught Some Content the Recording Missed
- Web Search: Psychedelic Pseudoscience
- Tech Notes
- See Also
Download Link
Download for 1 week starting March 22, 2022: https://we.tl/t-uZRlYlJ0BP
There’s an in-browser Preview link on desktop, and probably an equivalent on mobile. d/k if can listen to entire episode that way.
total episode length: 3:40:00
Ep235a: 1:42:50 154 MB stereo
Ep235b: 1:56:32 174 MB stereo
Filenames
“Ep235a Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations.mp3”
“Ep235b Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations.mp3”
Song Titles
“Ep235a 🌪 Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations 🌪”
“Ep235b 🌪 Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations 🌪”
Content/Timestamps Ep235a
- 0:00 – Intro short clip
- 0:19 – Guitar
- 0:44 – Content 4799.wav – on Citations in “Science Papers”
- 10:00 – the less said about poor non-theories and failed articles, the better. Trick Bricks (a main idea in this episode): Science consists of “papers” that form building-block bricks that you cite and build up into a towering ediface, that falls over and collapses when it turns out these are TRICK BRICKS, forming a COLLAPSING FOUNDATION.
- 11:20 – Content – 4801.wav-4809.wav – Errata – feedback ringing (2:00 clip). Reductionistic: reducing away the psychedelic-specific effects, replacing them by ordinary-state Grief couch psychotherapy.
- My approach is that we combine and integrate and smoothly move between possibilism-thinking and eternalism-thinking; two experiential modes. Letheby tries to negate the altered-state metaphysics mode of functioning; the eternalism experiential mode and commit by sheer force to ordinary-state based metaphysics.
- 20:00 – The weakest part of Paul Thagard’s book Conceptual Revolutions is too prominent treatment of a scenario where there’s a well-formed “old theory”; replacing a neat, highly developed and specified “old theory” vs. a “new theory”. In practice, ESPECIALLY in this field, we have an other extreme scenario: a pile of non-theory, vs. a bona fide actual theory that’s “new” (1988/1997/2006). the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism.
- 22:30 – Mr. Buddha invented meditation enlightenment, we venerate and worship like we did badly with Aristotle. … we had do ditch worship of Aristotle to give birth to modern science. It’s a half truth to say science = experimenting; remember the context/alternative: authority-worship of Aristotle. Science means moving away from authority-worship of Aristotle, to independent thinking, of which experimentation is part. Modern science more about new theory construction untrammeled by citing and aligning with Aristotle, and good communication — not “experimentation”. Experimentation is not the essence; independent fresh figuring things out, and clear communication, is the essence.
- Citation of previous “peer reviewed”, “tried and true” bricks , building blocks, is backwards.
- A new theory needs to NOT be referenced to and based on the past heap of non-theory.
- We cannot steer forward by making Allegro our go-to point of reference, centering all discussions around “Allegro’s theory” — or “the Wasson theory” per John Lash.
- Is looking to the past attempts to understanding Psychedelics helping us, or dragging us down?
- Apple didn’t make the breakthrough, breakaway iPhone UX by shackling it to the desktop UX.
- 30:00 – Chris Letheby doesn’t cover Philosophy of Psychedelics; he covers ordinary-state metaphysics within a couch-psychotherapy context. 1 to 3 sessions for rank newbies.
- 32:00 – I’m mean to psychedelic pseudo science in my expose — and everyone is onboard with my criticisms. I’m part of a huge/widespread, broad, popular semi-backlash against BIG PHARMA PSYCHEDELIC/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX – the bunk “therapy” fake “complete mystical experience” — AN INCOMPLETE NON-MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE.
- Maybe I’ve been too harsh to the Big Pharma Psychedelic Industrial Complex — nah, 🔥 BURN IT DOWN! 🔥
- “We’ve been hiring incompetent people who cause more problems than value — it’s ok, we’ll make up for it by hiring more of them.” = today’s “psychedelic science papers”.
- 38:00 – I did some voice dictation into page “Purpose and Requirements of the Theory of Psychedelic Eternalism”, I am moving that to below. So that text matches the voice recording,
- 41:00 – I explain that the voice recording was accidentally off for about 8 minutes, but was caught by the voice text transcription below.
- The only book is Brinckmann.
- The only book is Walter Stace’s lone book. THAT’S ALL YOU GOT?! You call THAT “the scientific literature” (Studerus 2010 p. 2, “citation 20” = Stace: Studerus writes: TOTALLY WRONG AND BUNK PRESUPPOSITIONS = “THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE”: THIS IS GARBAGE! –> 🗑
- “The OBN scale basically includes items measuring positively experienced depersonalization and derealization, deeply-felt positive mood, and experiences of unity. High scores on the OBN scale therefore indicate a state
similar to mystical experiences as described in the scientific
literature on the psychology of religion (eg, see [20] [20 = STACE, OF COURSE, ONLY; A SINGLE, 63-YEAR OLD, OUT-OF-PRINT BOOK, = “the scientific literature” 🤡]). The DED scale includes items measuring negatively experienced derealization and depersonalization, cognitive disturbances, catatonic symptoms, paranoia, and loss of thought and body control. High scores on the DED scale therefore indicate a very unpleasant state similar to so called ‘‘bad trips’’ described by drug-users.” - 1:02:00 – Do not open the lid and see how the Psychedelic Science Sausage is made: I did; it’s all worms & snakes! 🤢 😱 😵
- 1:07:00 – 11-Factors is just a phantom marketing campaign concept, not a concrete actual questionnaire. “Figure 1 shows all 11 of the factors, not a single item missing, that are in the 11-Factors questionnaire.” Misleading! There are 15 factors, not 11; Figure 1 is missing 24 items of 66 (36% of the OAV items are missing from Table 1).
- 1:09:00 – My webpage communicates what 11-Factors actually concretely is, the tally counts of items, way more clearly and less misleadingly than the awful presentation of the 11-Factors article. How many damn items are there? 66! Not 42 like Figure 1! how many factors are there? 15, not 11 (2 hi-level Un/pleasant + Virtual factor 12 + Shadow factor 13).
- 1:12:00 – Memorizing author names of 11-Factors (Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, Franz Vollenweider) (that’s from memory) & CEQ articles (5 authors) (Frederick Barrett, Matthew Bradstreet, Jeannie Leoutsakos, Matthew Johnson, & Roland Griffiths).
- 1:41:37 – Guitar/Outro
- 1:42:02 – Guitar gtr 2924.wav from Ep110 Mythemeland
- 1:42:50 – End.
Psychedelic Science and Entheogen Scholarship: This field is #1 at baloney, prejudice, presupposition, and pretense.
Content/Timestamps Ep235b
- 0:00 Intro short clip
- 0:19 – Content. 4810.wav
- 1:55:40 – Outro
- 1:55:53 – Guitar (0:25)
- 1:56:32
Voice Transcription During Recording, Caught Some Content the Recording Missed
which I consider I do not advocate science and I do not advocate conducting experiments and I do not believe that science is essentially about conducting experiments science is actually for one thing it is about throwing Aristotle off of a cliff just like we need to throw a John Allegro and Wasson off a cliff and stop being stunted stop being hung up and retarded back in the year 1970
to form modern science it was not just about doing experiments in isolation do you have to consider the context we switched away from obsequious stunted worshiping of Aristotle to experiments this doesn’t mean that experiments are our savior this does not mean that experiments are the essence the real lesson take away there is that instead of authoritarianism we need to make explanatory frameworks independent of previous authorities that is the lesson the lesson is not experimentalism
Modern science is not experimentalism that is missing the point modern science is rejecting the previous approach of authoritarianism meaning that every conversation was expected to be based on the authority of Aristotle and so we could never move beyond that and this is the same issue I’m confronted with now when deciding who is Who is unenlightened failed science article paper am I supposed to cite to build my castle on top of their broken foundation what is the point in citing kindergartners work ?
this is counterproductive.
The previous directions go ahead in the wrong direction for example CEQ questionnaire you can’t build anything on this it’s headed in the wrong direction we don’t need to correct it we need to replace it by a Correct foundation
You do not correct the Ptolemaic earth centered cosmology model
you replace it by the correct model nothing is to be gained and
it is completely inefficient to try to describe or authorize the new sun-centered model by 100 citations of wrong wrongly misfocused wrongly focused and wrongly centered previous science article citations
this doesn’t work this is very inefficient
it’s a net loss citing and referring to and giving the time of day and acknowledging the existence of the previous articles is a net loss
you would’ve been better off just saying how things actually work
it’s just pure waste of time and counterproductive to give the time of day and acknowledge the existence of the articles headed in a completely wrong direction
when we think that it is reasonable to cite previous articles within the field
look at how many assumptions are lying behind that judgment
we are judging that there exists the field
we are judging that these articles provide more light than error
and what if those assumptions are false
What if there is no old theory
what if what little articles are published the past that are foisted off on us as if they were theories, are completely confused and worthless and headed in the completely wrong direction
and worst of all they put forth a conceptual lexicon that provides more harm than help
like some of the later Catholics said about the pagan knowledge base the less that we have of it the better off we are
The earlier Catholics had a shockingly very pro pagan attitude , a very different mentality:
the way they saw it , we should cite and base our work , and integrate our work with the past thinkers, because the past thinkers brought a lot more truth than falsehood
So whether you should whether my article ought to have citations of the previous building blocks of solid science is dependent on the quality of these building blocks if these building blocks are worthless mud
it’s nothing but a burden , nothing but misleading
They’re more of a setback then I help if I offer you building materials that are rotten
If I offer you a set of conceptual lexicon that has era running all throughout it in that case in that scenario does it make any sense to try to build upon that rotten foundation or should we raise the whole thing to the ground and start from scratch?
we’d be better off — in that case
So people take a much too favorable approach
they give undue respect to the worst field of all, the most backwards, most prejudiced field of all, filled with prejudice, is this field of psychedelic science
it is an extreme case
it is almost the exact opposite extreme of when you had a very organized Ptolemaic cosmology
Which was a bona fide theory
the Ptolemaic cosmology was a bona fide theory
it was at one end of the extreme of the spectrum of scenarios
but now we have a very different situation , in the case of psychedelic pseudoscience, where we do not have any scientific bricks
these are all bunk
Trick Bricks & Collapsing Foundations
we cannot build with these
These are Styrofoam built to disintegrate
these bricks there they’re designed to crumble
articles like the MEQ article and the CEQ article
you cannot build a sturdy structure from these broken building materials that pull you in the wrong direction
“We lose money on every product we sell, but we’ll make up for it and quantity.”
This is like hiring an incompetent person: do you think well they’re incompetent? We’ll just hire 100 incompetent people.
The person is bringing more detriment then help.
when I mention pseudo explanatory noises like default mode network and neuroplasticity and ego dissolution
What if every article that you cite is more of a detriment and the more that you mentioned ideas
for example is the quick sand trap the allegro trap: the more that you mention allegro, the more you get trapped and locked forever within allegroism thinking
and this is what has happened to this is
This is the pit Thomas Hatsis fell into that ate him up
the harder that he tries to fight against allegro the more that he reifies his allegro limited horizon of thinking
he can’t escape the gravitational force that he Thomas Hatsis himself as built up
he’s trapped within his own orbit of permanent negative fetishizing Of allegro
as he says my favorite book is sacred mushroom & the cross —
and then he turns around and goes persecuting and harassing a name-calling and misrepresenting and forcing everybody else to play the role of a Allegro Advocate , which is all pure projection
he is the what time is
Hatsis is the one who is obsessed and fixated on Allegra and then projecting Onto other people such that when other people not only they don’t they don’t “leave from allegro” ; rather , they never were stuck in Allegro
they we’re never in the allegro orbit in the first place
and he sees those people Who have somehow escaped from his allegro jail that he’s stuck in and he says you’re not allowed to be outside of my Allegro jail because you are operating from within the allegro foundation, and you are self contradicting yourself by asserting psilocybin because you are based in the allegro foundation I am sorry listener but I can’t even
Mark because is thinking is irrational it doesn’t make sense I guess I have learned with a Erwin Panofsky how to get inside of his irrational headspace so that as to represent his crazy arguments and reveal in the process of just how crazy they are and I can that way flush out and expose and bring out into the light what his insane wrong erroneous assumptions are that enable him to make such garbled assertions
Here I mean what how can we clean and read the mind of Thomas Hatsis when he says when he argues in a strange way saying Seema see the email Hatsis his reply to me and try to make sense out of what is underlying assumptions are that would enable him to put forth this argument
of course citations are available for everything I’m saying — you can see the insane email yourself
Thomas Hatsis reasons and argues to persuade me he says you and Brown are not allowed to assert psilocybin because you would be contradicting yourself because allegro is your basis that’s pretty much what he argues but I I’m baffled I don’t understand how this is supposed to constitute an argument what he puts forth as persuasive argument or just plain baffling it is the same as with a Erwin Panofsky and I continue seeing so many strong parallels between the bogus argumentation put forth burped forth by Erwin Panofsky and the
At egodeaththeory.wordpress.com you can search why I see it got it got the domain correct and then I undid it’s correct transcription
you can search how to reply to me I believe is the name of the sub section within the page I did development page maybe 13 when he finds out about people who are who have the audacity to not be trapped in a Lego jail that he himself is trapped in he says you’re not if you’re being inconsistent the foundation of everything that you think is Allegra your foundation of all of
your thinking is allegro he declares falsely and ignorantly revealing his ignoranceyou can search how to reply to me I believe is the name of the sub section within the page I did development page maybe 13 when he finds out about people who are who have the audacity to not be trapped in a Lego jail that he himself is trapped in he says you’re not if you’re being inconsistent the foundation of everything that you think is Allegra your foundation of all of your thinking is allegro he declares falsely and ignorantly revealing his ignorance
We are too charitable when we think surely it would be reasonable to “the good solid established scientific articles that have built up the foundation thus far what if they’re all garbage dump what if they’re all misleading and pulling us just into confusion then the last we’re here of these articles the last confused will be every article that you bring into the picture
Do not assume that each “so-called scientific article just brings positive contributions
and especially do not assume
you are in no position to assume that each “peer reviewed”, “validated” scientific article as they claim
you cannot assume that it’s bringing 99% positive and only one percent detrimental
what is the article is bringing in 99% detrimental and only one percent potentially beneficial
for example Thomas Hatsis and his writings in some cases for example in the case of Psilocybin in Europe
I am really not sure whether I should applaud his book psychedelic mystery traditions
this book might bring more harm than good
I’m not planning on it
I’m certainly not planning on citing it in my list of references
why would I?
it would be interesting to identify why I would not list Hatsis’ book in my list of references
I’m not necessarily saying that it has more harm than good because 50% might not be very critical figure
it might be that if a science article provides 2/3 potential benefit and 1/3 potential harm
it might turn out that it is more detrimental then beneficial to acknowledge the existence of that article
Web Search: Psychedelic Pseudoscience
search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Psychedelic+Pseudoscience%22
we need to reject the misnomer of ‘psychedelic’ and embrace the appropriate accepted medical terminology of ‘psychoplastogenic medicine’. Psychedelic pseudoscience dilutes our standing in best-practice medical communities.
https://sceniccityneurotherapy.com/psychedelic-medicine-needs-a-rebrand-acknowledging-the-potential-of-psychoplastogenic-medicine/
psychoplastogenic medicine – 🤔 Would that be a form of Wouter Hanegraaff’s “entheogens in the wide sense” aka non-drug entheogens?
Maybe you have discovered a new form of John Lash’s psychomimetics, which are desirable because they imitate the mind:
“psychomimetic”, last line on this page, I’m sure it’s just a typo:
“psychomimetic, mind-imitating”, middle of this page, wavy pencil underline:
Tech Notes
Input Recordings
Ep235a 🌪 Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations 🌪
VOX_TK_4799.wav (all March 21, 2023)
VOX_TK_4800.wav
VOX_TK_4801.wav
VOX_TK_4802.wav
VOX_TK_4803.wav
VOX_TK_4804.wav
VOX_TK_4805.wav
VOX_TK_4806.wav
VOX_TK_4807.wav
VOX_TK_4808.wav
VOX_TK_4809.wav
Ep235b 🌪 Psychedelic Pseudoscience Circular Citations 🌪
VOX_TK_4810.wav
Miking
AT2020 L, eq 4.5 3 -15
CAD M39 R, Cardioid, eq 4.5 3 -10
Limiter, 80 Hz cut
See Also
The Egodeath theory 