Talk:Terence McKenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups

Misinformation in critisism of 'Stoned Ape' Theory of evolution[edit]

I have a copy of the study Fischer et al - Psilocybin-induced contraction of nearby visual space and there is misinformation/disinformation in the critisism of 'Stoned Ape' Theory of evolution from the blog by Sam Wolf ref 82

1. At no point, as the current article implies, does it conclude "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism"

2. As far as I can tell from reading the full study visual acuity measurements were part of the process: 'After the administration of 160 ~g/kg psilocybin. The manifest aniseikonia of each of the subjects was measured using his maximum visual acuity correction' There conclusion is there is a 'drug-induced enlargement of nearby visual space' and an 'enlargement of handwriting area' and 'Drug-induced contraction of nearby visual space was inferred from changes of AFP curvature and tilt, as well as from increased handwriting area at drug peak. The 'rising horizon' (Rennert) in the drawings of schizophrenics is also considered a manifestation of the contraction of visual space and is described in terms of an arousal-dependent trans- formation of constancies.' The enlargement of nearby space was a point McKenna drew on frequently by joking about them been like molecular binoculars which would aid in the foraging of food.

3. They were given doses of 160ug/kg or 0.16mg/kg which could easily be considered as a low does. Paul Stamets, in Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World , reports that a "manageable dose" of psilocybin/psilocin would be around 0.25 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) and a high dose to be 0.5 mg/kg. A low dose is probably around 0.125 mg/kg."

So to summarise McKenna's use of the word 'improve' in "low doses of psilocybin improve visual acuity" could be criticised. But to state "His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized for lacking evidence and for misrepresenting Fischer et al., who studied medium doses (not low doses) of psilocybin and found that perception (but not visual acuity) was altered." and "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" as the article currently states is not true. Screamliner (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Wolf article was about the only independent assessment of the stoned ape theory out there, and it was only permitted via WP:PARITY. Analysis by Wikipedia editors can't be included in the article. Do you know of any other WP:FRIND sources? If we can't find a suitable one, then the stoned ape section should be removed per FRIND. Manul ~ talk 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Manul I don't fully understand your point. The 'Stoned ape' theory section is built on numerous independent reliable sources, 2 of which which are analytical and critical of the theory and that critisism is included. Also I am not contesting all of the points from Wolf's blog. I appreciate analysis by Wikipedia editors can't be included in the article and I am no expert in analysing scientific papers anyway. There is another source I know of which is a 'cirtical analysis' and while this source takes on a fairly ad hominem approach in sections there is some relevent critisism to be pulled from it. It appears the 1st point I brought up above "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" was from a seperate study according to this new source so that should probably be made clear in the wikipedia article. In regards to my 2nd point about visual acuity, this: "they published studies about visual perception — perception, not acuity — as affected by psilocybin, in terms of various specific parameters. Not visual acuity." is taken from the new source and this information should be included as the study was not specifically about visual acuity, although it appears visual acuity measurments were involved in the testing. I think my 3rd point, the specific point about fischer et al. studying "medium doses (not low doses)" should be removed altogether as it is demonstrably false.
I think using the new source the opening of the critisim should be changed to this (the rest can stay as is):
McKenna's "stoned ape" theory has not received attention from the scientific community and has been criticized for a relative lack of citation to any of the paleoanthropological evidence informing our understanding of human origins. His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized by suggesting he misrepresented Fischer et al., who published studies about visual perception in terms of various specific parameters, not acuity. Criticism has also been expressed due to the fact that in a separate study on psilocybin induced transformation of visual space Fischer et al. stated that psilocybin "may not be conducive to the survival of the organism".
I have added the new source and made the changes. Screamliner (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To editors concerned with factual accuracy of this article. I note on objection a misleading assertion by editor Screamliner (Aug 12 2015) - posed as justification for a 'partisan' edit. I speak as not only PhD biologist, but author of the article from which the 'damaging' info was edited away, on false pretext asserted thus: <the specific point about fischer et al. studying "medium doses (not low doses)" should be removed altogether as it is demonstrably false. >

In ironic fashion, that claim is itself glaringly untrue, as can be easily shown. The 'demonstrable falsity' resides in that very assertion, as I find. The relevant facts clearly show the truth. As cited to valid sources, they are simple - and twofold:

1) The dose used in Fischer et al.'s studies of psilocybin and visual perception - was 160 µg/kg. I don't see anyone disputing that (how could they, on what grounds?)

2) In unvarnished reality, 160 µg/kg is nowhere not a low dose. Its between a medium and high dose of psilocybin. Source: Wackermann J, et al., 2008. Effects of varied doses of psilocybin … Neuroscience Newsletters 345: 51-55:

12 µg/kg = Very Low Dose 115 µg/kg = Medium Dose 250 µg/kg = High Dose

Such a simple fact as dosage - reflects in valid research sources, competently cited. Empty assertions, trying to contradict or confound the fact - are for other purposes. This is posted for information purposes. I would not care to 'go back and forth' about the fact, only note it being contradicted. And post simple source, to mere facts - of Fischer et alia's research dose, and psilocybin dosage range as well known scientifically. To conscientious editors in attendance, I submit question - just what truth, what fact as relates - is 'demonstrably false'? Thank you B.P. Akers, PhD (biologist / author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talkcontribs) 08:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"'Partisan' edit" - Please refrain from making defamatory accusations against the integrity of my editing.
1. Your article was the source I added to the article and from which the new information was taken. The article from which you claim "the 'damaging' info was edited away," was a blog by Sam Wolfe, so unless you are both Sam Wolfe and B.P. Akers you are mistaken in your assertions.
2. You state I made "Empty assertions, trying to contradict or confound the fact", yet I provided a link to mycologist Paul Statments definitions on dosage. I own the book this is taken from so will verify the statment, but it appears the definition of dose level is a contentious issue so should not be included, especially when the only source cited in the article claiming this comes from a random blog by Sam Wolfe. I can't recall the claimed doesage isssue been brought up in your article, although I may be wrong. But even if it is Paul Statments is one of the worlds leading mycologists. Screamliner (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

To this 'screamlining' voice: Reply to fraudulent request (punctuated "please") denied, for being staked out on false and misleading accusation (yours) - pretentiously protesting your 'integrity' of your editing - which is glaring in its falsity, of both fact and underlying motive. I observe clear intent in 'service' to St Terence, on your reverent part - to obfuscate facts, distort the issue of citation, manipulate and defy simple facts as demonstrable in evidence, and citable. Here's two among egregious deceptions I find you've had the audacity to screamline, blatantly as can be:

1 - Re the Fischer quote "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" - you falsely claim someone. Sam Wolfe [sic] - cited it to 'Transformation of Nearby Visual Space ...' He did nothing of the sort, as anyone reading his essay can see. Seeing how you played that for staged rebuttal in some high-handed 'refutation' theatrics - doesn't scramble the issue (nice try though). You're the only one who claimed (for your own ulterior "rebuttal" motive - that somebody else mistakenly cited that quote to 'Transformation of ..."

      Fischer et al published over a dozen articles from their research on psilocybin and visual perception. That the Clever Mr Mackie exploited only one to misrepresent and falsify for purposes of his 'heightened visual acuity' ruse - doesn't alter the fact.  Neither does your diversionary crybabying about pointing your fickle finger toward Sam Wolfe [sic] - AS IF he ever made such citation claim - as you've put in his mouth like your the ventriloquist and he's your dummy.  Just like McKenna put his own words into Fischer & Hill's mouths - its called 'ways and means' - part of a Modus Operandi of stealth deceit and covert manipulation.
    The Fischer quote you've dramatized about (with blatant dishonesty) is accurately cited in a piece you can't deny having read, having laid down certain cards - CONCERNING TERENCE MCKENNA'S STONED APES. Its from R. Fischer & R.M. Hill, "Induction and Extinction of Psilocybin Induced Transformation of Visual Space" (Pharmakopsychiat. 6: 258-263): "Psilocybin … consistently increases the natural misjudgment of the AVV." (Apparent Vertical Visual) "At its worst, such disorientation may be compared to a 'jammed computer' state, a condition which MAY NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE ORGANISM" (p. 263 - caps added for emphasis).
     I'd love to see you say Oh, you didn't know - as if to correct yourself, like someone with editorial "integrity" (chuckle).  Faced with accurate citation in context of fact (that despite your theater, nowhere did Sam Wolfe [sic] or anyone else - cite that to 'Transformation of ..." you have no such recourse, by your motive.  You've left yourself no exit, no ground to stand on - for affecting an alibi.  If I'm wrong - prove it, let's hear it - "wow ... didn't know that."  Fat chance, you don't have it in you - you got denial and defiance, 'standard operating procedures' - power struggle, obfuscation.  All tactics you display and exercise by demonstration - accusation and calumny, trying to dispel the facts you can't wish away - and if possible, turn issue around by seizing offensive - and keep yourself off the ropes.  And for all your trouble, such an effort - there you are under microscope, dodging and defying - and so self-righteously indignant.  
     You oughta be disaccounted by WP admin, in my opinion.  Full of falsity top to bottom - you can't correct errors you've deliberately perpetrated - it'd be a conflict of motive for you.  In view of the bottomless dishonesty of your 'talking points' - and their transparent nature as diversionary obfuscation - complete lacking integrity - you can only tout them and hold them above correction, defy and deny.  I can only consider you're in contempt of WP policy and practice, both, as you've played it.  And in the process I think you've got yourself cornered - left yourself no means, no alibi within reach to try and protest some semblance of innocence - e.g. "oops, honest mistake" on your part.  Unless you care to prove that wrong (when you've neither intention nor capability to) - your show of grim determination, and defiance, refusal to be honest or even credible - a 200 proof distilled lack of integrity that glares in your theater.

2 - your talk about "it appears the definition of dose level is a contentious issue" - comes off as standard operating procedure in the McKult - defensive and desperately trying to mitigate damage - fallout of McKenna's fatuous claim Fischer et al discovered psilocybin causes 'enhanced visual acuity' ... 'in small doses.' That they didn't even study 'small dose' effects is but one among myriad fabrications about their research, As Told By Terence (the hero). Psilocybin's range of activity isn't some controversy - despite 'level best' attempts to controvert. Its well known in competent context, long established in scientific research lit. What do you go up against all that with? Why, you wave a popular 'magic mushroom hunters' field guide by the notorious Paul Statments [sic]. As if that's some peer-reviewed publication, with any validity. As if there's no scientific research spanning decades, that has long since established psilocybin's activity and dosage range - truthfully and factually. Either that or else you know and are well aware, au contraire - that there is a wealth of primary literature about dosage range of psilocybin - but what it actually says is nothing you want it to.

      The facts about psilocybin dosage range are - (1) well known and widely reported; and (2) anathema to your storyline desperately trying to do CPR on Terence's Tall Tale - which as a tissue of lies from the gitgo - was never even alive in the first place.  By strategy you display it appears you realize you can't undo the fact of Fischer's 160 µg/kg dose.  The numbers are too 'out of the bag.'  You're running out of aces. And the only recourse you have left for vainly trying to rescue the 'visual acuity' ('discovered by Fischer') fraud - is to somehow dramatize 160 µg/kg - as if it were a 'small doss of psilocybin' ("possibly" ?).   That goes up against primary research articles that pose menace to such a ruse - all you can do is avoid the primary lit on psilocybin's dosage range like the plague - desperately clinging to commercial fluff for the peasantry, citing popular 'hallelujah' pubs like that mass market book by Statments [sic] - as if it were the authoritative source on such a subject. 
      The highest dose of psilocybin that's ever been designated 'Low' - in any primary research source - is 100 µg/kg.   Maybe you'd like to argue 160 is, or perhaps 'seems to you, far as you can tell' (for extra ambiguity), or - if you "remember correctly" (throw in a bunch of that type tripe) - 'actually a lower number' than 100?   Akersbp (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC) akersbp
Akersbp you are in violation of WP:PA and have made so many blatantly false accusations against me, my character, and my editing, while completely twisting the statments I have made. It seems as if your perverse and unjustifiable anger is blinding your ability to read what I have actually written in this talk page discussion! I will not converse with you any further after this, unless you can communicate in a reasonable and respectful mannor.
To address your points:
Point 1. I was referring to the Wikipedia article! Not Wolf's blog, how you confused this fact is unclear to me, it was the Wikipedia article at the time which implied it see:
Point 2. I stand by what I said above. Wikipedia is based on information from reliable sources, you've brought no new sources to the table to outline your point, and whether you like it or not Paul Statments and his published works meet that criteria.
And just to be clear approximately 40% of "The Stoned Ape" criticism was added to the article by me, 20% of the "Novelty Theory" criticism was added by me, the entire "Watkins Objection" sub section which is critical of the mathmatics underpinning the time wave was added by me. I am even the editor who found and added your hyper-critical reality sandwich article as a source to the wikipedia article!!
Screamliner (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Stjohn1970 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry to say, the last paragraph under the heading "stoned apes" is criticism of his theory, and so should go under a separate heading.

Independent sources for "Stoned Ape"[edit]

The "Stoned Ape" section has a lot of primary sources; material on Wikipedia about a fringe theory needs to be based upon secondary, independent sources. (This is an issue throughout the article, but let's look at Stoned Ape for now.) What are the sources we have for Stoned Ape? Several sources look questionable, for instance the book published by "Dreamflesh", which may be a vanity press or close to it. There is The Beauty of the Primitive by Oxford University Press, though McKenna's views on human evolution are only mentioned briefly.

The article also needs to cover the mainstream reception of Stoned Ape, and the only thing I see along these lines is possibly the Akers blog post. Per WP:PARITY this may be OK, but it's a last resort when no other criticism can be found. The Woolfe article doesn't appear to even meet WP:PARITY.

So it seems to me that the Stoned Ape material needs to be streamlined using WP:FRIND sources, taking the best ones available and (for lack of something better) the Akers post for mainstream reception. Manul ~ talk 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Manul you state "The "Stoned Ape" section has a lot of primary sources; material on Wikipedia about a fringe theory needs to be based upon secondary, independent sources."
This is simply not accurate (nor is it accurate for the rest of the article). The stoned ape section is built around the following reliable secondary independent sources:
Letcher, Andy (2007). "14.The Elf-Clowns of Hyperspace". Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom. Harper Perennial.
Mulvihill, Tom. "Eight things you didn't know about magic mushrooms". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited.
Terence McKenna; Promoter of psychedelic drug use". Los Angeles Times. April 7, 2000
Jacobson, Mark (June 1992). "Terence McKenna the brave prophet of The next psychedelic revolution, or is his cosmic egg just a little bit cracked?". Esquire
Dery, Mark (2001) [1996]. "Terence McKenna: The inner elf". 21•C Magazine
Gyrus (2009). "Appendix II: The Stoned Ape Hypothesis". War and the Noble Savage: A Critical Inquiry Into Recent Accounts of Violence Amongst Uncivilized Peoples. London: Dreamflesh
Brown, David Jay; Novick, Rebecca McClen, eds. (1993). "Mushrooms, Elves And Magic". Mavericks of the Mind: Conversations for the New Millennium. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press
Pinchbeck, Daniel (2003). Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. Broadway Books
Znamenski, Andrei A. (2007). The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and Western Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Horgan, John. "Was psychedelic guru Terence McKenna goofing about 2012 prophecy?" (blog). Scientific American.
Davis, Erik (May 2000). "Terence McKenna's last trip". Wired
The minor use of primary sources suppliment the secondary ones and I would think are justified as per WP:PRIMARY, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:ABOUTSELF. As for the Gyrus source it is only used as a solitary source for 2 of the criticisms at the end of the section, everywhere else it is used the points are also covered by other sources. By all means lets remove the one sentence sourced from Woolfe's blog.
It is also worth bearing in mind that this is a biographical article about McKenna's life and views which should aim to give the reader a clear and thorough enough overview of him as covered in reliable sources as per WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. Not an independent article on a specific theory of his or an inclusion of say McKenna's views on a wikipedia article about evolution.
Some Mainstream reception from the 'Critical reception' section of the wiki article its self: "some praised his "scholarly" approach. Biologist Richard Evans Schultes, of Harvard University, wrote in American Scientist in a 1993 review of McKenna's book Food of the Gods, that it was; "a masterpiece of research and writing" and that it "should be read by every specialist working in the multifarious fields involved with the use of psychoactive drugs." Concluding that "It is, without question, destined to play a major role in our future considerations of the role of the ancient use of psychoactive drugs, the historical shaping of our modern concerns about drugs and perhaps about man's desire for escape from reality with drugs."[89]
John Horgan in a 2012 blog post for Scientific American also commented that, Food of the Gods was "a rigorous argument...that mind-expanding plants and fungi catalyzed the transformation of our brutish ancestors into cultured modern humans."[8]"
Screamliner (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Screamliner, would you mind saving me some time by pointing out which sources are from experts in the relevant field, such as anthropologists, who are specifically evaluating the Stoned Ape hypothesis? Thanks, Manul ~ talk 15:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

For reference - viz. "anthropologists who are specifically evaluating the Stoned Ape hypothesis" - no such hypothesis figures in anthropology (or other disciplines as relate, e.g. evolutionary biology) - as anyone can discover, by consulting basic sources and texts therein.

A false and misleading claim that there is too such a 'hypothesis' is promulgated - only outside authentic literature sources in anthropology (and biology, etc). One must look in other type lit (such as sources listed above) - to learn about McKenna's 'evolutionary theorizing' as it pretended to be - as if it were some 'covered up' hypothesis - of which science is frightened, because it'd sensationally 'force' a revision of 'everything.' Such storyline is staked out on fraudulent ground - such as deliberate, knowing and willful falsification of sources upon which 'talking points' of deception - are pinned. And the story is to be defended no matter what, by those 'inspired' to its cause - as above, the screamlined attempt to find a passing reference in Fischer et al's "Contraction of Nearby Visual Space" - to the phrase 'visual acuity' - as if somehow substantiating the fabricated finding McKenna pinned on that research - of 'psilocybin enhances visual acuity' - in 'small dose' - complete with preposterously screamlined obfuscation of psilocybin's dosage range - desperately trying to shoehorn the Fischer study into compliance with McKenna's lies about it - and those who've inherited the wind, taken it on as their own glorious cause to perpetrate further.

As author of CONCERNING TERENCE MCKENNA'S STONED APES - I'm not just a PhD biologist, specialized in plants and fungi. I'm also - an anthropologist and got my first grad degree in it (Masters) at Western Michigan University. I completed my doctoral coursework in it at Univ of FL.

And there is to my knowledge no other anthropologist who has ever conducted any significant investigative research assessment of stoned apes - other than myself. Putting aside sources listed above, pre-dating my publication on it - here's a source more recent (and up to date, shall we say) than something like that 2009 Appendix by Gyrus, or other sources (as postured above) - quote, from HEADS: A BIOGRAPHY OF PSYCHEDELIC AMERICA by J. Jarnow (2016):

< “Whether the mushroom comes from outer space or not ... when a person takes small amounts of psilocybin their visual acuity improves. ... The presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack-hunting primates caused the individuals that were ingesting the psilocybin to have increased visual acuity.” It is wonderful “psychedelic blarney,” as HIGH FRONTIERS layout visionary (and McKenna associate) Lord Nose puts it, but it belies an accurate understanding of evolution. And, as writer Brian Akers and others point out much later, it misrepresents Fischer and Hill and team’s original study regarding mushrooms and visual acuity. >

But that reflects current understanding not outmoded. As informed since Mar 28, 2011 - Reality Sandwich date of publication, my article on stoned apes. It unmasked for the first time how severely false its foundations are - no matter how you slice it - from findings in research egregiously falsified and fraudulently cited as supposed evidential basis for it - to a profound lack of theoretical coherence (a la natural selection). Sources like Gyrus, published prior to the 'inconvenient truth' being aired - go a long way to show the extent to which those who 'know the name' (McKenna) simply believed whatever he claimed 'scientists discovered' - reflects vividly, as thru a glass darkly. For example, from Gyrus Appendix on Stoned Apes, 2009 - here are two richly illustrative quotes that, taken together like bookends - nicely illustrate the degree to which McKenna's disinfo established itself as 'fact' in uncritical minds - with the effect of conjuring the 'reality' of a theory, by pure moonbeam-in-jar bs methods of disinfo he specialized in:

Page 63: "Low doses of psilocybin HAVE BEEN SHOWN to enhance visual acuity, an undoubted boon for hunters" - caps added for emphasis, nothing of the sort has been 'shown' - Gyrus not only parroting the false 'fact' but even ratifying McKenna's cluelessly pseudoscientific line of 'evolutionary reasoning' ...

Page 66 (the 'logical conclusion' thus): "While I have reservations about McKenna's speculations, I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE CLOSE THE DOOR ON IT"

Voila, the exact objective of evolutionary pseudoscience, to stake out its claim on whatever subject matter by exploiting anyone who doesn't care or doesn't bother to check basic facts (like - lit sources cited) - nor have any significant education in evolutionary biology, e.g. about things like - natural selection.

A hypothesis or theory requires data or evidence however slight, to rest upon, as even McKenna apparently couldn't deny. Stoned apes flunks that very defining criterion - its no hypothesis only an incredible simulation quite unconvincing - because it has no shred of data to start from - nor anywhere it can go. No wonder McKenna felt compelled to concoct 'evidence' in the form or 'findings by Fischer et al.' - as a basis for his propaganda - as he called it, in one of his infamous private 'confessions' (google his Gracie & Zarkov interview - he brags about it being bs).

The operational blueprint of the Stoned Apes fraud originates with the invention of evolutionary pseudoscience, as an 'inspirational' cause and subversive propaganda campaign - in the 1970s, by Old Time religion (not post-psychedelic New Age). Not only have biologists, anthropologist and other specialists in key fields not 'analyzed' this 'hypothesis' - they've never heard of it. Nor would they reasonably be expected to have - as a matter of staging operations, and how any subversive caper is carried out. The 'theory' - to again quote McKenna (from a 10 hour indoctrination session his following commemorate on youtube as 'Tree of Knowledge") - is for presentation 'in private, among friends and fringies, it doesn't trouble me to confess ..."

And the sources in which such a 'hypothesis' is perpetrated discursively, largely fall outside the range of 'lit review' methods in science and scholarly studies - and as far therefrom as possible (the better to go undetected for wrong' purposes) - as noted by a San Francisco college librarian:

“Analysis of over 700 citations in a bibliography of the late 20th century visionary philosopher and eschatologist Terence McKenna reveals that half the periodical articles and two-thirds of material in other media could not be found using the traditional bibliographic research infrastructure of bibliographic databases ... In compiling a bibliography ... I have had to seek publicly available websites—the visible, open Web—to find citations and works not represented in the traditional research infrastructure.” It takes more than research, an investigative even 'under cover' approach is required to - get the goods on this crap.

And as one of vanishingly few sound edits for this entry (nor do I consider reasonable prospects of much improvement owing to WP policy, practice, procedure (deficiency of functional boundaries in theory or application) reflects - no, stoned apes has not received attention of specialists in the fields it rips off. They'veo mostly never heard of it. E.g. (example) - Richard Dawkins on a visit to Univ of MD campus in 2011 - a 'stoned aper' took opportunity in Q & A to broadcast 'word' for the McKenna cause, before the entire audience (the better to intrigue whoever). As reflects, not just Dawkins reply - but the questioner's theatrical recourse to "WIKIPEDIA" as some kind of proof its really a real theory - beautifully illustrates the 'staging operational' aspect of - the present entry with all its editorial sturm und drang:

Q: ... A while back I stumbled across the work of a gentleman named Terence McKenna, I don’t know if you’re familiar with him. He was a strong – he was actually more known for his, um, promoting, uh – psychedelic drug use? – or, I guess - recreational, in that sense, drug use. So, um - but he made an interesting, and this is what stood out to me, he made an interesting point on evolution, by mentioning the, the role that dieting played in – in how we evolved. And specifically – Dawkins: The role WHAT played? Q: Diets? Diet. Dawkins: Oh - diet, yes. Okay. Q: He was also known for saying that, for the – its on Wikipedia – the stone ape, stoned ape theory - ? Which was basically that our level of consciousness came from, uh, psychedelic material within, like, the dung of other animals or - I guess, when we came down from the trees as a species, we started indulging in their diet, the diet consisting of feces and so forth. So I just wanted to get your opinion on that, how, to what extent do you agree or disagree? Dawkins: What was the name again? Q: He promoted the stoned ape theory. Dawkins: NO what was HIS name? Q: Terence McKenna Dawkins: Yes - I know nothing about him. And I know nothing about his theory. I’m interested that you should tell us about it, thank you. But I’ve got no knowledge of it. So, thank you.

NOTE THE EXCLAMATION (for the studio audience to be impressed by) ITS ON WP! – as ‘validating’ reflection on its authenticity as a theory, its ‘legitimacy’ i.e. entitlement to be ‘recognized’ and ‘accorded status’ as such, true to the ambitions of Intelligent Design, Sciencey Creationism - etc.

akersbp Akersbp (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) (counted - four tildas) - Jan 2 2017

Novelty Theory[edit]

Bitcoin and Crypto are Terence McKenna's Novelty Theory 2.0 Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Timewave synthesizer[edit]

Timewave synthesizer does not appear to be notable on it's own. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to merge as any detail necessary is already included in this article. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)