Talk:Terence McKenna: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 42: Line 42:


:This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
:This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

== "Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience" ==

This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of [[WP:RS]]. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. Find a RS that supports this statements. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:53, 23 September 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Stoned Apes Theory in popular culture: a popular NFT project called Stoned Apez was based on McKenna's Stoned Ape theory. Their site it https://stonedapez.club . Several of the creators discussed the origin for their idea on a Twitter Spaces held 09/23/2021 70.176.63.7 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Would only be included if it becomes particularly notable, which it doesn't appear to be at this time. Seems to just be trying to get free advertising by taking a similar name — IVORK Talk 23:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

"enthalpic" not "entropic" Quist8 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as per spource "When I told McKenna that I wasn’t sure exactly how his timewave theory worked, he launched into a vigorous explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existence emerges from the clash of two forces: not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repetitious, conservative; novelty is creative, disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale, you can see these two forces grinding against each other. You can also see that novelty is winning." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-psychedelic-guru-terence-mckenna-goofing-about-2012-prophecy/
Screamliner (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks

The character Dr Lawrence Jacoby was based loosely on McKenna 2603:800C:2D00:6300:F166:4E:905D:6D2C (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"bond harmine [...] with their own neural DNA"

Is that a literal quote from the book or from the subjects? Then it should be marked properly. If it's not a quote it should be rephrased because "bonding a chemical with the neural DNA" is not a thing. --mfb (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. MarshallKe (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience"

This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of WP:RS. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Find a RS that supports this statements. MarshallKe (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]