Musings on Terence McKenna's Theory of Language

J, much obliged for your clarifications and replies to specific points.  My yellow alert on 'illusions' is cancelled. Good to know that was not in ref to some factual error in my article.  

I find considerations and principles you cite are mostly sound, in and of themselves.  Reasonable people nowadays affirm: human knowledge is a work eternally in progress.  Your phrase "incomplete understanding" says it well, I think.  Historically we've failed to realize this especially at a certain stages of discovery.  

And likewise: incomplete can cast a spell, weave an illusion of complete -- so that we don't realize.  For example, the old clockwork universe.  But in time, new data come along that don't fit -- forcing re-examination and revision.  We figure it out -- there's more to the story than we quite realized.  My search for greater knowledge and understanding has -- can have -- no final point of arrival.  That enables ongoing progress, no end in sight.

I think there is a mile-wide difference between us though, and perhaps we agree on that.  I find it in the context of citation for your otherwise sound points.  There are some vital aspects of understanding from which I speak, that I don't find reflected in what you offer.  Even though I like phraseology you bring for its clarity and focus.  In part, its my years of studying interactions between science and creationism, or other such ideological power struggles, that helps inform -- I highly recommend more of that as a touchstone for comparison and contrast.  Anyone might be startled how enlightening and revealing ... Much in how you advise me echoes what creationists suggest to scientists. 

"Strategic diplomacy" for example.  We'd need to account for goals or objectives (and I believe many fail to comprehend mine).  I don't try to reason with madness, nor do I think its a good idea.  Nor do I seek to 'get along with' an attacker -- and I had my share of psycho-violent harrassers in the CONCERNING STONED APES reply blog.  The parade of pathologies expressed massive aggression, both active and passive. Hopefully you know aggression can be overt, or covert.  

Amid your gentle admonishment -- misdirected, from my pov -- I find you'd need to take balanced measure here, in view of the staggering extent of the purely anti-social malignancy of most replies I've gotten. Especially given the foundation of my discussion, clearly stated and reflected -- compassion for the human condition and suffering; plus uncompromising investigative inquiry, using combined methods with conscientious rigor, to reach credible answers to important questions without biasing them in advance (to make sure the answer is pleasing to a particular prejudice or ideology).  

In passing: a main patterns I note in TMism is: admonishment, sermons, etc., demands upon others of one kind and another, how to view things, what to think and why, etc.  "To all the haters" (borrowed from a recent, articulate -- but suffocatingly preachy -- amazon review of FOOD OF THE GODS ...).  Finger-pointing self-righteous talk is as pervasive in TMism, as with any bible pounding or revival meeting.  Unappealing stuff!

I think you could have good ground for discussing aggression as a factor at the core of your purport (as I read it).  But to be compelling it would need appropriate emphasis.  Seething, scalding hateful aggression has been prominently expressed.  J. Zap wrote an entire rejoinder article, thus inspired by that sheer hostility and belligerence -- which he called "road rage."   Those posting me in reasonable terms -- like yourself? -- have found, I'm readily amenable to discussion.   But they've been the vanishing few not the monumental many.  On reflection, I don't think there is some 'diplomacy' issue on my part -- but if one is needed, I'd refer you to the rabid, sociopathic reactions.  

And, I advocate encouragement of whoever to express themselves in their own words, both quantity and quality.  Not "too many words" etc. No fussing English schoolmarm routines need apply -- unless, as I say you have a specific edit you'd suggest.  In cine, I find a potentially ironic reflection on your "not concise enough" emphasis.  AMADEUS -- the musical king praises Mozart's music except ... uh ... "too many notes."  I trust you've seen it (nor does majesty offer a re-write).

I like your phrase "strategic diplomacy.'  But how aware are you, that diplomacy can be pointless, highly un-strategic -- in fact disastrous.  This is a vital nuance, and frequent point of failure in understanding for both interpersonal, and international relations.  Churchill and De Gaulle understood this, Chamberlain did not.  

Good intentions, as I think you may well harbor, are fine.  But clear understanding of how they become pavement stones in our hellward road is crucial.  There are some nuances and complexities concealed beneath the surface of human relations.  You're right to point to this realm, in this context.  But a sound grasp is absolutely germane here -- of how / why / under what conditions good stands by, hands in its pocket doing nothing -- enabling evil to work its hand.  Good is fine until it becomes passively complicit.  Its no longer so good at that point!

A vital distinction I note closely -- and urge discriminant attention to -- is a profound difference between aggressive per se, and assertive.  I walk that line, and I find that's the problem TM fans have with me.  They are just not ready for that, in any way shape or form. 

I'm assertive, and make no apology for it.  None is indicated.  Especially where uncritical gullibility rules, a long established tradition of agreeing, nodding head to whatever TM said as "possible" or great or inspiring or whatever.  When it comes to that, I neither give quarter, nor ask for such.  And thus I breach taboo.  I'm in flagrant violation of an unstated dictate or doctrine -- that the TM rap is great and inspiring.  In whatever way, that doesn't matter -- as long as the claim to praiseworthy enthusiasm is not questioned.  Any such question is closed by the Teachings we find here.  The conclusion is a foregone one. 

I do question it, based on examination -- light and magnification.  I question it sharply.  That's the problem.  There really can't be any discussion of whether TM's legacy is positive or not in this context, its simply not allowed, verboten.  No such question is, or can be, admitted for serious inquiry.  What TM 'inspired' was slap-happy adulation and uncritical, fawning gullibility.  This is good?

My discussion is about that.  It goes there.  It hangs out, checks the whole place out, makes itself comfortable, pulls up a chair.  That is considered aggression by squatters who, without rights, territorialize there and try to hold the ground as if its their property.  Its not, and by asserting my rights, I negate the false claims levied upon it.  Police don't like me either, btw. I routinely do same with them, mostly on 4th and 5th amendment rights. "Permission to search per your request, denied" (and "I'm not required to answer questions, thank you") etc.  They think I'm mean to them too, no fun at all.

The subject of psychedelics, and all it involves, is a commons.  Its adoption by the TM interest, claiming special entitlement or authority over it, is fundamentally illicit.  Much like seizure of Persephone.  Looks pretty good, undefended, so -- why not make the grab?  

That's aggression, but finger-pointing is unfortunately regnant in the TM subculture.  I notice that (against its wishes, yes) and I call it what it is -- assertively, on sound principle.  I do the same routinely with bullies, whether overt ("Hey there fellow, with your hair colored yellow ...") or coy ("Hey, I'm concerned you could get beat up, why don't you give me you're lunch money and I'll make sure that doesn't happen, I'll protect you").  Its no different than the deal Churchill gave Hitler, who no doubt preferred the 'diplomacy' of Churchill's predecessor.

Hitler probably thought Churchill was unreasonable, or aggressive, what do you bet.  There are really too many subtle ironies in the realm of human relations.  You're right to regard that realm in this context, but to command the subject (I think) you'd have to note the main features in dynamic play here.  

So much of what you say is right in principle.  Its only the application where I find major, vital considerations unrecognized.  If we were to dialogue, that is the basis upon which I'd need to question you in respectful disagreement.  This isn't about your perceptions, those are yours and you're the world's authority on them.  Its about dynamics of the human condition, and that is a profound subject.  The video you linked, at the end cites the relational as primary determinant (per his quantum demo).  Yes.  

If anyone can relate to me, or communicate with me, such as yourself -- I think the credit has to go to them -- not to me on account of being "concise" or etc.  I say what I say, in the words I use.  Just as you do.  To me that's as it should be -- a situation that is fine as is, not broken.  Doesn't need to be fixed.  And if someone else can't (including folks right here trying to get a reaction, pressing buttons ....) -- same principle holds.

I don't think you "stray from concise delivery" -- but neither do I affirm per your suggestion, that's a vital factor in the failure or inability of TM fans to engage discussion with me.  There certainly is a communication problem, but not exactly along lines you diagnose I find.  You may not have fully taken the points I've made.  I've already addressed some of what you're talking about (as I read your post).  Relational dynamics with a friend in disagreement with you differ profoundly from what malignant anti-social attackers -- the great majority of reply posters to my article -- bring to the 'discussion' table.  

Diplomacy is a good thing with great potential, but no single-edged sword, or answer to everything.  It was not only wasted on fascists in Europe -- with best intent (peace not war) -- it failed to set limits at key moments, incurring tragic, catastrophic consequences in due course.

Sometimes we have a vital interest to understand when communication signals are used for other purposes. Like manipulation.  That's a major element of TM talk, as I've found again, and again -- but only by questioning, investigating, taking on in-depth studies to give me the framework of understanding needed to competently get answers that hold up to double check and triple check.

I have to credit you in this context.  You apparently have the self-respect and intelligence to express disagreement with civility and reason, rather than rage and rancor.  There are things we agree on at some levels, but at deeper levels, more disagreement perhaps.  

Either way -- it strikes me as a possible shame that the big questions that emerge at that depth -- and the discussion, the large frame it could proceed from -- is simply forbidden in TM talk arena.  The circus is overwhelmed an dominated by hostility and aggression -- likely to attack even fellow TM fans, if they don't join in the chorus of hostility, help pile on the target.  That their strategy is to silence a voice like mine, by threat of attack both implied and enacted energetically -- is something it seems you understand (again to your credit).  If so, then you must likely also realize -- it ain't gonna work, it isn't working.  

By your tone, just on impression -- you might be the first respondent who's crossed my path, who perhaps comprehends -- that 'intimidate and sllence' strategy is powerless, faced with my discussion.  And rightly so, I suggest.  Its a losing bet, doesn't have unlimited ballistic range.  With no need to please ideologues, I'm pretty well outside its target reach.  Of course they can stop fellows who might like to dialogue from any such attempt.  I'm glad you've not been attacked, its what you risk -- not from me -- by civil discussion across the chasm.

Repressive social constraints, control measures of the subculture, hold sway at present.  Perhaps some day, the real discussion can be joined as a dialogue.  Its the only conversation that could ever find anything of genuine value in TM's legacy, if there is such (a possibility I won't exclude prematurely) -- that others than TM followers might acknowledge.  No bets though, strictly wait-and-see.