Michael Hoffman, 11:12 am-8:34 pm Feb. 16, 2025
Contents:
- Intro/Motivation for this Page
- Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists”
- See Also
Intro/Motivation for this Page
Perceptual Dualism is this set of premises, especially the first 3 (the 4th is just my shutting out others’ ideas):
- Matter Exists,
- Experience Exists,
- Mental Constructs Are Primary for Modelling Personal Control,
- Thoughts Do Not Create Reality
This morning while gathering my writings about Psilocybin as the true gold standard Reference for myth and religion and mind transformation, I similarly wondered where I drafted writings about what I’ve recently called “perceptual dualism”.
I dislike how Chris Letheby and Matthew Johnson present uninformed options, possible positions regarding “mystical experience”, within the debate about Moving Past Mysticism ie “the mysticism wars within psychedelic science”.
Chris Letheby’s Poorly Defined Options for Positions about Psychedelic Mystical Experience
How to End the Mysticism Wars in Psychedelic Science
Chris Letheby et al
https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/01/15/the-theory-of-psychedelic-eternalism-provides-a-scientific-explanatory-basis-for-mystic-state-experiencing/#Mysticism-Wars
Intellectual Autobio; Reasons I Modelled Perception
I don’t recall all the dates, but in effect, in April 1985, my father gave me all the latest concepts and techniques in self help seminars, human potential movement, transpersonal psychology, breathwork, Ken Wilber’s books, Alan Watts, etc.
In October 1985, I started selectively applying some of those ideas – transformed – to repair my dysfunctional personal control system.
This post is also to fish for other connections-topics where I detect there’s some gold. eg connecting “New Thought” — a label new to me — to my criticism of the MOTIVATIONS of WHY people in 1920(?) embraced egoic wishful thinking fantasy interpretation of Quantum Physics & the Copenhagen interpretation: EGO INFLATION TO THE EXTREME.
Here’s the bad reasoning that abuses … dorm-room level junk Philosophy:
Since mental constructs are all we experience, this means that thoughts are reality, therefore you are God, creator of infinite universes at all moments.
Chris Letheby tripping in his dorm room as a Philosophy undergrad, asserting the mysticism position
Why I Favor Perceptual Dualism
I assume the material world exists AND I emphasize entirely, in the Egodeath theory, all of our experience is mental constructs.
I’m vehemently against “Cognitive Neuroscience”. Cognitive Science (psychedelic phen’y) must tell Neuroscience to take a hike, because Neurofoo is an invasive species, a parasite that kills the host.
Here’s what every “cognitive neuroscience” book says and does:
- “Cognitive”, as Marketing positioning.
- Neuroscience.
- Delete Cognitive (cognitive phenomenology).
- And while you’re at it, be sure to — in the case of “Cog Sci of Religion” books — prohibit any mention of psychedelics.
“Cognitive Neuroscience”? “Only Matter Exists”, or “Only Mind Exists”? The Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach
“Cognitive Neuroscience” tangles “Only Matter Exists” and “Only Mind Exists” [that’s just exploring an idea] – the Egodeath theory’s treatment of Perceptual Dualism is the right approach
to develop this idea/ gather my writings
Why I Am a Perceptual Dualist & Never Had Any Interest in Dorm-Room Philosophy “Only Consciousness Exists” – yet more than anyone, starting in April 1987 said we must prioritize mental construct processing
In the articles critiquing “mysticism/ mystical experience”, some of them advocate, or argue about, “only mind exists”.
They say if you think – AS ONE OF THE NAYSAYERS ASSERTS AND THEN RIDICULES, he alternatively(!) asserts AND ridicules “only mind exists”.
He is an experienced psychonaut, he says every time he in in the mystic altered state, he believes only mind exists.
He equates mystical experience with the delusion that only mind exists.
This psychedelic philosopher writes articles or compiles articles that advocate hard materalism (only matter exists; consciousness is merely epiphenomenal).
His schtick is to get high, assert that only mind exists, and then come back down, and then write articles ridiculing people who say only mind exists – ie, ridiculing psychedelic mysticism.
He’s just like Hatsis, who fully embraced Allegro (still says in effect “Allegro is my fav author), then reject Allegro and aggressively project his own childish childhood views onto Brown, me, & every entheogen scholar.
Hatsis goes around attacking [& violently forcefully projecting onto others “this is your position you are asserting: Secret Christian Amanita Cult”], scorched earth, Allegro (even where there is no Allegro).
This dynamic is striking, needs development by me, so starting — I am planning a page/post about why I never have had any interest in this topic that one Philosopher (Chris Letheby??) in field of Psychedelic Science treats terribly, the topic of “only mind exists” or else “only matter exists” – an idiotic because unhelpful Philosophy topic.
ie, CRUMMY PHILOSOPHERS INVADING FIELD OF PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE, TELL US WHAT’S IMPORTANT IS TO FIGHT OVER WHETHER ONLY MATTER EXISTS, OR ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS [conscious experiencing] EXISTS.
Letheby [if I’m not mixing him up] is trying to steer the debate over mystical experience into unprofitable FALSE DICHOTOMY.
Letheby is trying to turn the field of Psych Science into a stupid unhelpful/ irrelevant Philosophy-department debate.
copied the content from
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/07/idea-development-23/#Perceptual-Dualism – 1 sentence; the summary answer:
Why I Provisionally Assume that the External World Exists:
Because this is the most flexible and useful and practical model.
My Focus in 1986: Repairing Dysfunctional Self-Control Across Time
I took General Semantics in Spring 1986 semester.
The 1987 style of the project of fixing my personal control system was helped by figuring out the nature of ego transcendence per Way of Zen; but not helped by Philosophy department notions (that Chris Letheby employs) like “only mind exists” or “only matter exists”.
In April 1987, I left the approach of writing normal sentence cajoling myself in my blank books, and changed to a very qualitatively different approach in expansive binder sheets with acronyms and concepts including mental construct processing and loose cognitive association binding.
I have the notebooks and diagrams, but too dense to be worth deciphering.
I’d have to recopy it, exactly the same as my edge-of-indecipherable engineering classroom notes. Written for immediate idea devmt idea development.
For comparison/ an approximation of that problem, see my roughest idea development sections at this site, but make the letters hard to read.
I LOVE my hand notes of April 1987 through early 1989 — but they are a really slow-going jungle; they would have to be re-written, to get any value from analyzing them.
In April 1987, I started analyzing meta-perception, started modelling it.
The harebrained, irrelevant, stupid Philosophy proposal that “only mind exists” had NOTHING to contribute toward that practical project of fixing personal control — “only mind exists” is not gonna get the massive homework load done, & my absurd fantasy-based todo list.
I had an URGENT need immediately for a model of the mind and self-control across time that is practical & effective & leveraging Transcendent Knowledge (which I set about figuring out logically per STEM, in 1986).
Equally unhelful and irrelevant is “only material exists” and “only mind exists”.
So, I did not think in terms of those stupid notions; but I analyzed ego transcendence – a la Alan Watt’s centralizing cybernetic self-control as enlightenment….
The irony: My father gave me the Way of Zen by Alan Watts in April 1985 and i didn’t want it, yet that book is perfect in combining “ego transcendence/ Transcendent Knowledge = self-control cybernetics sudden fundamental transformation of thinking”, and I held the latter view/ strategy by 1986, and only in 1987 found that Watts took that approach which was — in some key ways — closely aligned with my approach, my mentality, in two ways:
- cybernetic self-control as the central focus of Transcendent Knowledge.
- sudden revising of the mental model about that.
Meditate Harder, and Give Zen Master Brad More Money
Alan Watts used a binary model, from deluded thinking, to enlightened thinking.
Not Ken Wilber’s 15-phase psychospiritual development from prehistory to postmodernity from birth to old adulthood after a lifetime of Advaita non-drug, freewill thinking.
Wilber’s notion of Advaita contradicted Ramesh Balsekar’s.
I needed Transcendent Knowledge NOW, at age 18, not at age 81 with Wilber making excuses for meditation having delivered none of his promises.
Yes, it takes some time to do mental model transformation from possibilism to eternalism: a single school quarter. The product is a failure if it takes longer.
“It’s not that our product is bad; it’s user error.”
“It’s not that my product I sold you is bunk; it’s YOUR fault for not MEDITATING HARDER/longer.”
Loose cognition reveals the fundamental priority of mental construct processing. But that is entirely different than the stupid notion — unhelpful profoundly — “only mind exists”.
I was grounded in STEM homework/ studies, anchoring me.
And in 1988 spring, I hated Quantum Physics interp because it was NOT grounded in sober STEM engineering reality, but entirely jumped the shark (dancing wu li masters b.s.) into “consciousness is the fkiking GOD of reality.
Melissa Dougherty vs New Thought; Christian critique of New Thinking
Napoleon Hill Unmasked: Lies, Scams, Cults, and Occult Beliefs
Melissa Dougherty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-ZGDUg8Bo
Melissa Dougherty – “remember the year 1908” – = Minkowski spacetime block universe.
You are God, you create the future by your thoughts. to research: “New thought” corrupting Christianity.
Quantum Woo: ego is the Creator.
Your Ego Is God, Creator of Infinite Worlds Every Moment (= “only mind exists”; the observer-ego collapses the wave function)
I am not saying that my father’s field told us that or emphasized “your ego is God and has the power to create the world” – i guess there was some of that unhelpful nonsense.
The 1985 human potential movement was reasonably balanced affirming both the material world and mental construct processing.
I never felt … bc my needs were serious, — see autobio below for dates — In 1986, my needs were serious. Not Phil dept masterbat’n. I had a seirous need fro FOR PRACTICAL ERFFECTIVE CONTROL ACROSS TIME TO DO ENGINEERING homework and an INSANE overcommitment per 1980s INSANE IRRATIONAL notions about time management “how to add unlimited expectations on yourself and then kil yourself in frustration b/c not practical”.
Sometimes my self-expectations in some respects were sane and reasonable. But in some basic ways, that was FOLLY. I THOUGHT that i was merely … it was a combination of dysfunctional self management PLUS way, way way way too FAR too many expectations.
- My control was dysfunctional. AND:
- I had FAR too many expectations, I blame and have blamed for some years now, the “time management” session at University that was required for Freshmen. Horrible!
Everything wrong and insane with 1980s time management notions.
They had ZERO conception of limitts and tradeoffs, the last thing they would think of, was WHEN YOU ADD A TODO ITEM, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER TODO ITEMS. WHEN YOU ADD A GOAL, YOU MUST REMOVE OTHER GOALS!!
THEY *only* told us how to ADD goals, not how to REMOVE goals!
Greedy youths (me in 1983) take that as: Here’s how to:
- pledge frat
- party
- learn guitar
- play guitar in band
- write songs
- figure out guitar amp tone (in 1987 that especially came into focus)
- learn about all topics in all departments
- have girls
- get A’s
- go skiing
- visit relatives/ my families every holiday
- figure out Transcendent Knowledge
- socialize
- pay bills
- manage paperwork
- do filing
Ego Inflation Driving Quantum Mysticism (branching manyworlds) & Dorm-room Philosophy “Only Mind Exists”
POWER-MAD TIME-MANAGEMENT INSANITY; we took time mgmt ideas, and went CRAZY with GREED: NOW I CAN DO EVERYTHING!
Copied from
https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/01/29/idea-development-24/#Perceptual-Dualism :
Article: Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation
article
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Posting-announcing-and-outlining-the-article
Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book.
The Doors of Reception: Notes Toward a Psychedelic Film Investigation (Church, 2018) – cites article “Cog Phen Mind Manif”
David Church, June 2018
Feature Articles
Issue 87
Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Cognitive%20Phenomenology%20of%20Mind%20Manifestation – no longer found
Search web:
1 hit: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2018/feature-articles/the-doors-of-reception-notes-toward-a-psychedelic-film-investigation/ – has a paragraph that cites the article and an article by Andy Letcher in same book:
“Nevertheless, the premise that drug use might comprise a useful working method for film analysis is not as outlandish as it might at first glance seem.
“After all, one common altered state of consciousness – the dream – has already had a long tradition within 1970s apparatus theory’s emphasis on film spectatorship as an oneiric condition.
“But apparatus theory’s structuralist conception of a universal spectator was premised less on the vagaries of drug-altered states than the psychosexual mechanisms of the Freudian unconscious.
“In my estimation, then, phenomenology provides a far more fruitful opening for analysing psychedelic cinema, because accounts of dream/trip experiences are not synonymous with those experiences themselves.
“Much as dreams seem real when within them but do not make sense upon waking retrospection, the trip experience only seems real until recollected later – but all we can have access to as researchers is the post-facto reportage of such altered states: a second-hand translation of vivid experience into discourse that inevitably fails to capture the in-the-moment profundity of such experiences.
“This act of discursive translation helps account for why such reports are so easily dismissed as solipsistic reverie instead of empirically valid observations.30“
/ end of cinema article paragraph w/ endnote 30
30 also cites Letcher’s article.
Not Interested in “Only Material Exists” or “Only Mental Constructs Exist”
I have this book.
Breaking Convention: Essays on Psychedelic Consciousness
https://egodeaththeory.org/2024/12/24/max-freakout-writings-and-podcasts/#Breaking-Convention-book
I have the same view as in the article “Cognitive Phenomenology of Mind Manifestation”.
I’m not interested in a revolutionary rejection of the external world existing, or anything like that.
I merely want to make a well-articulated model of the usual “representationism” assumption.
I’m not interested in radical positions like “only mental mental constructs exist” or “only the external material world exists”.
I merely want to say: assuming that the external material world exists, and that the mind models that by mental representations, how can we best model and discuss this?
I do not want to say “the material world is the cause of experience, of mental constructs, so therefore experience is less real than materialist plane.”
I favor a kind of “dualism” approach, where we “take mental constructs seriously”, “take representationalism seriously”, and we should emphasize – b/c useful — our experience; emphasize not materalism, emphasize mental construct processing.
I am not interested in the idea “the material realm doesn’t exist; only mental constructs exist.”
I would not take either side in some debate between “only material exists” or “only mind exists”.
I am not interested in that direction of thinking; that’s not where the value comes from.
Given the commonplace model – described in Mind Manfi article — how can we articulate TAHAT THAT model in the most useful way?
What is Max’s take on the poor options that Letheby gives us: either you must agree “naturalism materialism”, or, you must — like Letheby when in dorm room tripping — foolishly assert “only mind exists”.
What Max say re: you must pick between “only matter exists” (smart Science) or “only mind exists” (foolish Mystm) – there is no trace of that false dilemma in my writings or in Cog Phen of Mind Manifn article. Matthew Johnson & one side in the Mysticm Wars – the Sciencests (only matter exists) vs. the Mystics (only mind exists).
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.
Also reject extremist eternalism-thinking — posting title: 3-PHASE BEATS 2 PHASE like late anti’y beat early antiqy which is 2-phase and worships eternalism-thinking. the Egodeath theory does not – in my mature phase now – solely push eternalism-thinking.
That’s how Leth describes himself, while he pushes false dilemma, while he pushes Matt Johnson like, hardcore “naturalism” (whats that supposed to mean??) & “materialsim” or else you re a FOOL like Letheby in dorm room – says Letheby.
False Dilemma fallacy by this “leader” in “Phil & Psychedelics” – buy my book Letheby he edited a book or two, and the q’air that judges you based on whether you have correct thinking — materialiist naturalism, which is Science — or you have foolish thinking, which is Mystm like Letheby tripping in dorm room in Phil dept. That’s how Leth frames options, in his various works.
heading
One kind of ‘dualism’ – but do not trust labels!
Theres 8 kinds of dualism first of all in different fields/ topical areas.
Which of these 8 kinds of dualism?
Melissa Doherty vs. New Thought/ “Mind Is Reality”
Debunker Melissa Doherty — a former adherent of New Thought — picks out key phrase “Thoughts Are Things”.
A magic pejorative used among uneducated Christians: ‘gnostic‘
I had to halt playback of her expose of Napolean Hill who wrote Think and Grow Rich, and fume at Melissa Doherty for using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative, used so carelessly AS IF a meaningful term, when I, and I think others, have NO IDEA what ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative is supposed to mean.
I will use ‘eternalism’ jargon very carefully.
We are overly comfortable using & defining the term ‘determinism’ – it turns out that really, the term ‘determinism’ means: egoic possibilism thinking, recast into the form of domino-chain determinism, which is what Kafei assumed I mean in my 2007 main article at Egodeath.com.
‘determinism’ is a familiar-feeling term, but ruined by being saturated by egoic thinking; in contrast, ‘eternalism’ is technically correct – though it omits control issues of control – but not familiar to people, so hardly usable.
I recently had to quit using the term ‘pilzbaum’ except in a demoted way: “mushroom-trees (‘pilzbaum‘ in German)…”
Pet Peeve: When Christians say: Idea X is bad, because it is Gnostic – and they invariably (a hallmark) give not the slightest thought to defining what the hell their word ‘gnostic’ is even supposed to mean.
Christians say fervently and with assurance: “Their idea is terrible, because It is gnostic” —used without the slightest notion of defining that term.
It doesn’t even cross their mind that no one has any idea what they mean by ‘gnostic’. It’s 1-directional communication with no check to ensure communication.
You have to be pretty uneducated, ie insular, to use the word “gnostic” as a pejorative, as if using the word ‘gnostic’ as an undefined pejorative is meaningful to a broad audience.
It’s possible I’m out of the loop. I don’t watch tv and have no interest in fiction, or sports, or current affairs politics & political figures, and most pop culture.
On tv, if someone rails against and decries something bad because it is “gnostic”, would the audience have any clue what’s that supposed to mean?
Why do Christians think the word ‘gnostic’ is an understood pejorative?
When I hear that, I assume the person is ignorant in a couple ways.
Part of insular Christian culture, I gather, is to use the word ‘gnostic’ as a pejorative, never defining it.
Just like among low-grade atheists, “belief in God” is never defined, yet they write many words arguing about yes or no “does God exist”.
Comparably, many Christians Protestants, maybe in the 1800s or mid 1900s, demonized Catholicism as “Mystery Babylon”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mystery+Babylon%22
Nowadays stand up in church and rail against “Mystery Babylon”, that would be considered a “rant”.
I define “rant” as: a fervent utterance, that no one can understand what you’re on about.
It’s midwit reasoning: a poor thinker has picked up on jargon, and now throws it around like they’re educated; but such a person has a poor relationship with reasoning.
They have no idea how to argue or communicate an argument; instead, just slap on a pre-given, yet undefined term, a magic pejorative, ‘gnostic’.
They take 99.99% for granted, and only express argumentation by a context-free 0.01% of articulation.
I took 5 minutes to read the 4 horsemen of atheism after 2001 and was disgusted by the utter failure to have any thing more than gutter-level worst form of Christianity.
None of them had ever heard of esoteric mystic Christianity – they critiqicized Christianity and religion, but actually criticized worst-case junk; junk-level pop Christianity.
It is offenseively ignorant and self-centered and unthinking, to disparage something as ‘gnostic’ when the person DOESN’T EVEN CONSIDER ANY NEED TO DEFINE WTF THEY MEAN BY THEIR TERM ‘GNOSTIC’.
It’s evident that to these failed thinkers, these non-thinkers, the term ‘gnostic’ means: Any idea I don’t like.
The term ‘gnostic’ – when used without ever thinking of defining it — is an empty shell game empty token category wastebasket into which [see Wouter Hanegraaff] the Christian critic carelessly tosses ANY idea that they don’t like.
I cuss & fume about this because I fail at simply articulating my objection.
It is offensive to Reason, it is maddening, when ppl put forth utterances (undefined terms) AS IF they are meaningful to their audience.
People do this — makes me angry — when they say “Does God exist?”, “God exists”, and “God doesn’t exist” — but none of these dimwits even THINK of defining their #$%$&!! terms!
What does your word ‘God’ mean, and your phrase “believe in God” mean?
What’s wrong with you that you haven’t heard “Define your terms”?
“Believe in” & “God” — What’s that supposed to mean?
How can you employ terms so ineptly, so carelessly, so unthinkly, AS IF you are making a utterace that’s meaningful to the audience, when in fact no one has the faintest idea what you’re talking about.
This is an abuse of language, of communication, and it is insulting the audience, and insulting to language.
Their license to write should be revoked.
That’s how I felt about the worst-quality possible writing of the atheists.
Their writing really reduces the level of discourse.
My feeling, my reaction: I recoil, as if a member of the educated upper class, at the wretched masses who are incapable of thinking.
Do you not realize that your utterances are nonsensical, undefined, incomprehensible gibberish?
I get mad about … i am offdended by, their USE of a term AS IF the term carries inherent meaning.
I am maddened by PRESUPPOSITIONS that are UNSTATED.
I get angry because what’s left SILENT.
It is that silence that makes me frustrated. That lack of thinking.
That assumption that everyone has E.S.P. and agrees about these terms — as if theese are known terms.
See Michael A Williams: against ‘gnostiicism’ book.
Like the structure of Erwin Panofsky’s fallacious non-sequitur argument:
The Plaincourault fresco isn’t a mushroom, because you are ignorant of the hundreds of other mushroom-trees.
That’s not just a non-sequitur; it’s every logical fallacy all at once.
WHAT ARE YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS, IDIOT! 😫
See Also
pages at this site covering this topic: tbd, i already copied from idea development 23 / 24
The Egodeath theory 