what's happened to Michael Hoffman from egodeath?
thanks for that!! i started believing ego-death was a separate entity!!! lol!!!
i'm so disgusted by the world of today.. Sad
  Répondre
strangeloop a écrit :Is consciousness an epiphenomenon of matter? Or, is matter an epiphenomenon of consciousness?
Or, is this analogous to asking what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
In which case, we can safely assume they are mutually inclusive.



im very strongly inclined towards transcendental idealism/radical subjectivism, i think consciousness is absolutely primary, matter is secondary. Tripping has convinced me of this, psychedelic visuals and HPPD combined with basic reasoning can make a concrete philosophical case for a radical subjectivist philosophical position. The spontaneous visual pattern formation you experience during a trip effectively proves to the subject that the external environment of physical objects is a mental projection, we live inside a virtual world. This is explained very clearly and accessibly in Hoffman's 'bubble of simulation' article
  Répondre
adrianhaffner a écrit :thoroughly exorcised? you have no evidence other than your own experience. quit making these bullshit ASSUMPTIONS. just cause you jumped from one side to the other after a trip, doesn't mean the other is invalid anymore. i've jumped back and forth from one side to the other enough times to know that it makes little difference which side you choose to stand on, as they are FAR more self-defeating than ONE defeating ANOTHER.


the point is, the concept of 'exorsism' is primarily intended as a metaphor for this 'jumping' from the ordinary state of consciousness to the entheogenic higher state, and from the naive egoic worldmodel to the entheogen-informed transcendent worldmodel

the 'exorsism' is a total, permanent transformation of thinking which occurs over the course of a small number of strong entheogen experiences

the lower, egoic way of thinking is a demonic monstrosity, based on insanely loopy paradoxical logic. The divine revelation encountered in the ego death experience is the perfect, beautiful unravelling of egoic logic

adrianhaffner a écrit :
strangeloop a écrit :Is consciousness an epiphenomenon of matter? Or, is matter an epiphenomenon of consciousness?
Or, is this analogous to asking what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
In which case, we can safely assume they are mutually inclusive.
one does not exist without the other, so to say that one or the other is invalid or "came second", is retarding the process of comprehending it.


assuming that things have to originate from somewhere, it is fair to ask where the physical and mental worlds originate from, modern philosophy is based firmly on the axiomatic assumption that the fundamental ground of reality is physical matter. It is irrelevant that "one does not exist without the other" where the question being asked is about causal origin


adrianhaffner a écrit :to have cold without hot is meaningless


this ^ is a limited analogy to matter/consciousness but it still makes the same broad point, obviously you attribute a higher degree of reality to heat than you do to coldness, heat is a 'positive value', so cold is merely the absence of heat, that's why temperature starts at 'absolute zero'. Just as heat is more real than coldness, the question arises in philosophy of mind of the relation between physical stuff (like tables and chairs) and mental stuff (like the pain from being hit by a chair), which one is the 'positive value'? Does a chair fundamentally consist of its physical composition, or does it consist of its being perceived by human subjects?

adrianhaffner a écrit :they are two SUBJECTIVE situations, not two situations


yes exactly, they are 2 different subjective modes of experience

adrianhaffner a écrit :that's ONE side as well... there's not only a distinction, but from that, a relation as well. but they are pretty much the same thing, except, you either feel like pointing out how they're different, or you feel like pointing out how they're they same. Rolleyes


the distinction between levels of reality is precisely analagous to the distinction between states of consciousness, in the ordinary state perception is rigidly organised around physical objects in your environment, in the entheogenic state ultimate reality is revealed to some extent by the disintegration of ordinary perception, - ie when you trip, the physical world 'dissolves' to some extent, if you trip hard enough (and experience ego death) you can actually tear a hole in the time/space continuum and take a glimpse of the strange alien puppetmasters in the timeless transcendental realm beyond the manifest physical universe

adrianhaffner a écrit :i just dont see how you got to that bigger picture with the tactics you're using now...


the various myths and religions make perfect sense if they are interpreted as allegorical descriptions of the entheogenic altered state, you can list examples to demonstrate that myths are all essentially (but also loosely) equivalent. Joseph Campbell has done all the hard work for us here, his book explains everything you need to know about mythology and religion except the one crucial, centrally important point that myth is entheogen allegory. If you plug entheogens into Campbell's monomyth analysis you will understand mythology in a way which is tremendously intellectually satisfying

Myths and religions are all basically, big collections of stories about people having transformative religious experiences. The key concept is transformation, on the esoteric level of meaning, mythology is a map of the religious mental reconfiguration.
  Répondre
maxfreakout a écrit :Myths and religions are all basically, big collections of stories about people having transformative religious experiences. The key concept is transformation, on the esoteric level of meaning, mythology is a map of the religious mental reconfiguration."


i understand that, and it is rather intellectually satisfying, however, that is not my point at all. my point, and what im not sure of is, that you get the depth of the implications of what other things i postulated.

maxfreakout a écrit :'exorsism' is primarily intended as a metaphor for this 'jumping' from the ordinary state of consciousness to the entheogenic higher state, and from the naive egoic worldmodel to the entheogen-informed transcendent worldmodel


who said that once you experience this jump, it becomes permanent? or who said that everyone believe that which they see during a trip? studies have proven time and time again, that human memory is largely fallible. so to say that in a small handful of experiences of this different world model, your life will be "exorcised" of this old world model, is to idealize the concept. im not saying you are wrong, but im saying alot of people will need more than just a few experiences of this jump in order for it to really stick in any meaningful way, not simply for integrating the information, but in order to convert it into long lasting long term memory, which is relatively the same i suppose, with technique like "elaborative rehearsal" for memorizing. but this is assuming that they decide to believe what they saw at all. furthermore, permanent long term memories CAN be forgotten. usually though, something with a gravity like paradigm change is not, but lets not make it a standard that YOU WILL NOT FORGET, because that is definitely erroneous..


one of my main points though, in a situation when dealing in subjectivity, is, you have to address everything that is about something, and then everything that contrasts it, in order to get any real idea of what it is you are speaking about; not merely one or the other:

maxfreakout a écrit :Does a chair fundamentally consist of its physical composition, or does it consist of its being perceived by human subjects?


sooo, it MUST CONSIST OF BOTH. why either or? why one or the other? you can justify for days, months years, lifes one side. and then there can be another guy who does the same thing. are these two people in opposition? only if one ape doesn't like the others tone of voice. :roll: why can both not apply? i think is a relevant question coming from this, and i think you have shown me you recognize some aspect of this, simply by demonstrating this example for me. so how about avoiding the question some more?

maxfreakout a écrit :
adrianhaffner a écrit :one does not exist without the other, so to say that one or the other is invalid or "came second", is retarding the process of comprehending it."

assuming that things have to originate from somewhere, it is fair to ask where the physical and mental worlds originate from, modern philosophy is based firmly on the axiomatic assumption that the fundamental ground of reality is physical matter. It is irrelevant that "one does not exist without the other" where the question being asked is about causal origin"


sure, ill admit that one has a kneejerk response that is so desperately a desire to figure out EVERYTHING. to know what it all means, to know where it came from, etc. my paradigm is the fact that you can never deduce the answer (mostly due to fallacies of human constructs like language, not to mention the basic illogicalities here), so you are simply wasting brainpower trying to comprehend it in that way (i have tried for many many years). there are more than two ways of operating you know. also, how can you make a statement for your arguement about matter being "the fundamental", when you say your self this:

"im very strongly inclined towards transcendental idealism/radical subjectivism, i think consciousness is absolutely primary, matter is secondary"

a blatant contradiction?

one does not exist without the other is the answer to causal origin. please explain to me how this is irrelevant. please. it is impossible for this to not be relevant.

the only way to define something is by contrast
if you create a chicken, you've created everything that defines it as a chicken. you've created beak, talon, wings feathers, nests, and eggs. so you have a creature that flys, pecks, scratches, and lays eggs. because without any of these, you are not talking about chickens. a chicken is not a chicken if it does not lay eggs; just as an egg is not an egg by definition if it doesn't turn into anything...

if that is said to be irrelevant about humans, then what can you know about humans? you certainly cant begin to understand them this way.
we teach people not to judge other people based on their appearance, why do you think that this is? we generally refer to people by what they do. it's important to know what a human is made of, but only in discerning it from other things, not in knowing what a human truely is. it would be improper or irrelevant to say: john, the black guy with cornrows, you know he's about 6 foot tall. how many people do you think there are like that? this does almost nothing for the person trying to figure this out, (unless they've already met the guy, even so, horrible identification technique). so once the person cant figure out what your talking about from there, you'd say (or rather you'd say this before anything else): john, the accountant, he plays poker with jan on the weekends. point is you get a much better picture of who someone is by what they do not by what they are made of. these are BOTH relevant in talking about humans, but in understanding what a human really is, you must know what a human does, not just what it looks like, because it does not function without its surroundings, it's contrast.

by the same token, so, would you say "buildings are irrelevant in understanding humans" ? no, because you may have understood, the organs and systems that make a human, but you have not identified what a human is through time. what a human does is fundamental to what a human is.

so, using this logic in a situation where dealing with subjectivity, you have to address everything that is about something, and then everything that isn't, or rather everything that contrasts it, in order to get any real idea of what it is you are speaking about; never being exclusive to one or the other. (i know i sound liek a broken record here, but the difference is that i KNOW i do,but that is only because it is apparent to me that you [nor many others, to your credit] do not realize that you do as well.)
i dont believe that anybody has empirically stated with a majority in accordance, that the fundamental ground of reality is physical matter, i dont believe that one bit. may i see something alluding to that? maybe only all the philosophers that YOU think are credible, but certainly not all of them. lets be serious. in order to understand the universe being made of matter, you have to understand and know, that which contrasts it, or else it means nothing to have "matter". how can one discern matter from separate matter, with no space nearby to observe the matter through. you have to have nothing to contrast something (i can elaborate on this if you wish). so in your "axiomatic assumption" you did not mention at all how modern philosophers would have come to their conclusion if that was really the conclusion they came to, and that how, would be an equal weighing of things that are matter, and all the things that are not, like intangibles, ideas, and the notion of "space". to see them as separate and one having superiority (or alpha status, came first, what have you) is severely limiting your view of reality, and in that, creating a bias, which is easily read across all of your posts. do you disagree that you are being biased? :lol:

the hot and cold placeholders on my arguement are irrelevant, you're right, so stop focusing on them when the point is :
adrianhaffner a écrit :the fact that you cannot obtain HOT or COLD remains, the best you can do is measure, and come to a subjective conclusion, which is what you did, just dont FORGET what you did

they are fundamental to each other, even though your man made concepts tell you to polarize the scenario

maxfreakout a écrit :the distinction between levels of reality is precisely analagous to the distinction between states of consciousness

i get that. i dont think you do (that is to say, i dont think you get the full spectrum of why) though because i said :
adrianhaffner a écrit :that's ONE side as well... there's not only a distinction, but from that, a relation as well. but they are pretty much the same thing, except, you either feel like pointing out how they're different, or you feel like pointing out how they're they same. Rolleyes


see? you draw no comparisons here, only distinctions, and therefore have created another bias, AND ignored the entire point of quoting me for a response, all at once.
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
adrianhaffner a écrit :who said that once you experience this jump, it becomes permanent?


this is an important point, psychedelic trips typically don't have a permanent psychological effect, but rarely they do, and ego death theory is about those relatively rare times when they do. Ego death and subsequent ego transcendence is a permanent mental-model transformation, ego death is a 'life-changing' experience, the emphasis is on transformation, the theory precisely models this transformation.

You begin adult life with a fully developed ego, ie you 'believe' that you are an effective controller of your stream of thoughts, THEN you experience psychedelic ego death and realise that you cant possibly alter your future thoughts. The experience of ego death disproves the central principle of the egoic mental operating system, and therefore the mind is permanently transformed. It becomes impossible to continue naively believing in literal free will after ego death

adrianhaffner a écrit :or who said that everyone believe that which they see during a trip?


it isnt about 'believing something you see during a trip', rather it is about an overwhelmingly powerful experience (ego death) which profoundly disproves a belief which was held previously (the belief in the literal reality of ego). So it isnt about forming a new belief, rather it's about disproving an old belief.

Because the false belief which is disproved is foundational (ie it is a basic belief upon which large, complex systems of other beliefs are based), when it is disproved in ego death, the rest of the mental structure collapses like a house of cards. You take drugs intending to have a pleasant colourful trip, and you find yourself in deep shit when you think about the power of mental control and it makes you go insane

adrianhaffner a écrit :studies have proven time and time again, that human memory is largely fallible. so to say that in a small handful of experiences of this different world model, your life will be "exorcised" of this old world model, is to idealize the concept.


this is a very good point

(thought experiment) if you had been raised from a baby in a monochrome environment, you had NEVER seen any colours in your life except black and white (and grey) so you dont know what the word 'colour' means, then SUDDENLY someone puts you in Las Vegas for 12 hours, among all the bright colours, then you are put BACK into the monochrome environment for the rest of your life

you would certainly never ever forget the 6 hours you spent seeing colour in Las Vegas, your perception of reality was expanded by your visit to Las Vegas, because it showed you that colours exist, it showed you what the word 'colour' refers to

visiting Las Vegas in this story is precisely analagous to a life changing psychedelic trip

adrianhaffner a écrit :im not saying you are wrong, but im saying alot of people will need more than just a few experiences of this jump in order for it to really stick in any meaningful way, not simply for integrating the information, but in order to convert it into long lasting long term memory, which is relatively the same i suppose, with technique like "elaborative rehearsal" for memorizing. but this is assuming that they decide to believe what they saw at all. furthermore, permanent long term memories CAN be forgotten. usually though, something with a gravity like paradigm change is not, but lets not make it a standard that YOU WILL NOT FORGET, because that is definitely erroneous.


psychedelic insights are most often forgotten, but the ego death insight is permanent, it can never be forgotten because it isnt merely a memory, rather it is a central organising principle of the mind (ie mental worldmodel). The mind is radically restructured on a fundamental level by the ego death experience, when you glimpse the strange terrifying deadly beauty of the gorgon Medusa you are turned to stone, this is the perspective of 'frozen time/eternity', you take drugs and discover a perspective where the clock stops


adrianhaffner a écrit :
maxfreakout a écrit :Does a chair fundamentally consist of its physical composition, or does it consist of its being perceived by human subjects?

sooo, it MUST CONSIST OF BOTH. why either or? why one or the other? you can justify for days, months years, lifes one side. and then there can be another guy who does the same thing. are these two people in opposition? only if one ape doesn't like the others tone of voice. :roll: why can both not apply? i think is a relevant question coming from this, and i think you have shown me you recognize some aspect of this, simply by demonstrating this example for me. so how about avoiding the question some more?


if you insist that physical matter is real, you are going beyond the evidence, matter is forever invisible, hidden from you. I think it makes more sense to conceive of matter as purely conceptual, ie 'matter' is just a concept for mentally structuring our experience, nothing more than that

adrianhaffner a écrit :i dont believe that anybody has empirically stated with a majority in accordance, that the fundamental ground of reality is physical matter, i dont believe that one bit.


the modern worldview is axiomatically based on this ^ principle, matter is ultimately real. To put that another way, you wont be able to get a job in any serious university philosophy department doing metaphysics if you believe anything else, you have to be a materialist.
  Répondre
i cant talk to you anymore, you dont hear me. this shouldn't be fucking nine pages of me trying to explain the ONE axiom of my arguement. it's all there, minus the language barrier.and it's not even that you're seeing it and disagreeing, you dont even comprehend what i've put there for you, so im done feeding your bullshit machine.

"and you find yourself in deep shit when you think about the power of mental control and it makes you go insane"

does it make you go insane? then what happens when you come down off a trip after seeing this? (where's my insanity label maker Rolleyes ) have you experienced this? im being quite genuine.. because i know i have, and it did scare me, almost to the point of killing myself. but you know what i did? i thought "fuck it, if i was about to just kill myself, then i cant possibly do any more harm to myself by simply peering into this rabbit hole a little deeper, just being a mindful observer, can i? i mean that's what human existence is all about right? going into the unknown (after hiding from it, and hating and teaching others to fear and hate it enough so that everyone knows, and you've made this huuuge deal out of it, so that everyone is watching and they know :roll: how scary it is for you.. THEN you do it. haha) humans are afraid of the unknown. humans are also afraid of "crazy" people, even though we have no common definition for it. another unknown. when are you going to stop being afraid?
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
that is ego death
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
adrianhaffner a écrit :"and you find yourself in deep shit when you think about the power of mental control and it makes you go insane"

does it make you go insane?



yes entheogens typically cause a kind of temporary psychosis, with sheer insanity at the extreme end. But 'insanity' probably isnt the most useful word to use, it would be more precise to say that entheogens cause some degree of disconnection from public/consensus reality, where insanity is 'total disconnection', a clean thorough break from the continuum of ordinary reality.

And it happens as a result of thinking about mental control during a trip, that is the pathway to insanity AND transcendence/enlightenment

adrianhaffner a écrit :then what happens when you come down off a trip after seeing this? (where's my insanity label maker Rolleyes )


normally when a trip ends the psychedelic insights are forgotten moreorless completely, so the trip ends and the tripper immediately 'escapes into reincarnation' - ie they resume the set of tacit metaphysical assumptions (concerning the nature of self, time, freedom and world) that charcterise the egoic worldmodel

But the ego death experience is different, ego death is the truly 'life-changing' experience, after the trip ends even though the ordinary state of consciousness is resumed the powerful vivid memory of this crazy death-trip experience is burned deeply into the mind. This memory forces a radical, total revision of the core, taken-for-granted assumptions of the egoic worldmodel. The reality of the ego-agent (yourself) and the physical world are no longer taken completely literally as they always were before the trip, the initiate now recognises that there is a higher level of reality which entirely transcends his own being (crucially, it transcends his power of control over the immediate future).

You are not insane afterwards, but now you know what it is like to be insane, and that knowledge serves as a constant corrective reminder to the ego that its existence is actually incredibly fragile and ghostly compared to that of the underlying ultimate reality - true dread is the realisation that you might go insane in the next minute, you are helplessly reliant on a divine source to give you your sense of ordinary sanity at every moment. This helpless reliance is not normally experienced as a 'problem', ie you normally simply assume that the ordinary sense of egoic stability will continue to persist, - but the core essence of a 'bad trip' is the problematisation of the ego's reliance on a higher power to maintain stability in its ongoing existence. It can become HIGHLY problematic, to a truly cosmic extent, assume that a transcendent God (with absolute control over your future) would continue to support your existence in a life-sustaining way and not instead choose to bring everything to a catastrophic end

All religion is centrally concerned with this problem of how to trust the divine source of egoic stability during the peak psychedelic experience, ego death is the agonising crucifixion of Jesus the false-claimant to kingship, nailed to the time-axis completely immobile

adrianhaffner a écrit :have you experienced this? im being quite genuine.. because i know i have, and it did scare me, almost to the point of killing myself. but you know what i did? i thought "fuck it, if i was about to just kill myself, then i cant possibly do any more harm to myself by simply peering into this rabbit hole a little deeper, just being a mindful observer, can i? i mean that's what human existence is all about right? going into the unknown (after hiding from it, and hating and teaching others to fear and hate it enough so that everyone knows, and you've made this huuuge deal out of it, so that everyone is watching and they know :roll: how scary it is for you.. THEN you do it. haha) humans are afraid of the unknown. humans are also afraid of "crazy" people, even though we have no common definition for it. another unknown. when are you going to stop being afraid?


ego death is the ultimate unknown, the ultimate fear. The most terrifying thing is the inability to control terror
  Répondre
that's all fine and dandy, and wonderfully put, i might add. but i already know what ego death is...

for the record,
"but this is assuming that they decide to believe what they saw at all"

i was speaking specifically about somebody in denial, (which i believe tends to be the majority. dabblers of way-too low doses for way too long. afraid to get out of the kiddy pool..),"forgetting" and not forgetting, that is to say, attempting to forget, not, simply forgetting on accident, unconsciously, as you are right, something that profound cannot be, on accident, rather it can be masked by hiding from it and creating a mental block, but this tends to wear on the persons psyche and will show itself to the sufferer again and again, until there is radical change of some sort, whether it be a mental breakdown or breakthrough...

"if you insist that physical matter is real, you are going beyond the evidence, matter is forever invisible, hidden from you. I think it makes more sense to conceive of matter as purely conceptual, ie 'matter' is just a concept for mentally structuring our experience, nothing more than that"

"the modern worldview is axiomatically based on this ^ principle, matter is ultimately real. To put that another way, you wont be able to get a job in any serious university philosophy department doing metaphysics if you believe anything else, you have to be a materialist."

these two statements would appear to contradict each other in the area of what you define as "real". is the statement, 'that since you perceive only light waves/particles through your eyes, that seeing a true object of matter will forever be impossible' made relevant by that first sentence or the first paragraph ("hidden from you"), or do you perhaps imply something else? i feel like i might know what you're talking about, but still, i am too unsure to make an assumption.

i already know what ego death is.
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
[Image: baby-octopus.jpg]

I have been this creature. Including its size and minor grade of intelligence, actual feelings in every nerve despite the defencelessness.
  Répondre
Michael Hoffman has resumed his prolific daily posting in the ego death group at yahoo after several years absence:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/messages
  Répondre
(i know this is an old threat. i just registered and can't seem to be able to do a new thread, so i put it here.)

to put it bluntly: i think michael hoffman has lost it. i used to follow his postings for years and was quite a believer in his ideas. the years past and when i now look back on his EGODEATH-THEORY THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD i can only see a disturbed mind, someone deeply narcisstic.
His most recent postings about his "latest most revolutionary insights" (snake tree worldline) i find to be most indicative of a sad state of mind. The video he put online concerning his dramatic insight does not make me feel any better.

I always looked up to him, he was on the cutting edge regarding psychedelic/religious philosophy - or so i thought.
I rechecked some of his writings and they often seem extremely megalomaniac - and I don't use this word lightly here.

So what is this post about?
The last thing i want to do, is any kind of mockery. No, I truely am very interested on what your thoughts on Michael are. I have had email contact with him a long time ago, tried to reach him again per mail but with no luck.
Also: Where is he now? He always wanted to write a book to make his insights more public / accessable, this never happend as far as I know.


To all of you: In all your pursuits: Remember to stay grounded.
  Répondre
I came across Michael Hoffman's writings about 2 years ago, and i must say it has very much changed the way i think about psychedelics even though im not sure i fully understand it, so it is interesting to see a thread here about it i look forward to reading through it and catching up.

But please go into more detail about why you think he has lost it? At what point do you think this happened? The reason i ask is because i dont see any point at which his writing style changed, he writes pretty much the same way now that he has always written. So it sounds more like you are saying that your perspective of his writing has changed recently, instead of saying that him and his writing changed recently. For example, the whole snake vs tree shaped worldline idea that he has written (and made a video) about follows along exactly the same lines that his theory of myth has always followed, it's about the relationship between personal self-control and timeless fatedness, or freewill and determinism. The branching tree shaped worldline represents free will, the snake shaped worldline represents determinism. Why do you think this indicates a sad state of mind? He seems to be just further clarifying his earlier work, making his theories more compact and convenient like "tree versus snake".

I do agree that the video was rubbish, the chalkboard he kept pointing to was out of focus and impossible to read the small writing. But the tree vs snake concept is amazing imo.

I dont think he needs to write a book, it would be a waste of time because his websites are already fully accessible for free to the whole world, and they contain all the information that is needed.

I dont think the theory will change the world particularly, but then did he ever say he thought it would? The point isnt to change the world, it is only trying to accurately model and explain the ego death experience. I think anyone might be a bit megalomaniac if they had figured out the secret meaning of religion!
  Répondre
Psyche101 a écrit :But please go into more detail about why you think he has lost it? At what point do you think this happened? The reason i ask is because i dont see any point at which his writing style changed, he writes pretty much the same way now that he has always written. So it sounds more like you are saying that your perspective of his writing has changed recently, instead of saying that him and his writing changed recently.



This is true. I was addicted to painkillers for may years. I sobered up and since then much revised my take on life. You are absolutely right: Hoffmans writing style did not change much over time, its my take on it that differs.

Re "lost it": Well, his writings very much have this theme going on, that conventional scholars are dimwits, conventional wisdom is useless, the only salvation lies in ... WHAT actually? Accepting determinism? Too bad you just cannot do it, if it has not been timelessly decided that you HAVE to do it. See, now this whole timeless determinism, block universe talk seems rather empty to me. This whole theory seems like a gigantic effort, with very little result. Very little to grasp. And it seems much too reductionistic to me. Every religous riddle can supposedly be solved by the idea of timeless determinism. The whole theory and the way he words it is so extreme. Michael paints himself as being a saint (he literally used this word to conclude a posting) of some kind and you know... The theory, when viewed from a distance, sounds much less important than when being under the spell of the words Michael uses. I know his posts can have a very strong impact on a reader. In Hoffman's own words - you get infected by the nofreewill virus.



Citation :seems to be just further clarifying his earlier work, making his theories more compact and convenient like "tree versus snake".


He seems to go overboard though. He tries to reduce everything to being a clue or secret message stating the importance of the rule of timeless determinism.

Citation :I do agree that the video was rubbish,


He seems overly agitated. Like his explainations contain the Last Revelation.
The thing is : Prior to my revisions in thinking, his bizarre excitation convinced me fruther that he had a BIG truth all the world was waiting to hear.


Citation : I think anyone might be a bit megalomaniac if they had figured out the secret meaning of religion!


Religion has a (one) secret meaning? This seems way to simplistic and also quite paranoid.
That is how i see it now. Before I was a fervent believer of Michael's rants.
(I wanted to use the word posts, but the fact of the matter is: Many of his write ups border on being a rant, and even more are rants. I didnt't want to use the word, because i put so much faith once in all things egodeath determinism.
It feels very harsh to view it for what i see it now:
A strange man, proclaiming on the internet, he discovered the biggest secret of all time.

Michael is so convinced that he is right and (close to everybody else) is wrong, that, well... maybe, just maybe, it is the other way arround.

Too make a long story short, I quote Michael in order to why I think he should not taken seriously by anyone:

Citation :One interesting approach is a presentation "Pros and Cons of Ego Death". First, you have to sacrifice your firstborn child and deny that Jesus died on the cross. In return, you get to be a metaphysical slave and helpless puppet rescued by an impossible miracle. Good news: In the Gospel of John, turning water into wine, water of divine life flowing from the belly, means drinking mushroom urine. By the way, all this leads to the conclusion that Jesus is heroin. Thank you and good night.

  Répondre
Your criticisms seem to be more about Michael Hoffman himself and his attitude and writing style, and not about the details of the actual ego death theory. You dont say anything particularly strong against the theory, but you say plenty against the man and his style.

I personally dont share your opinion about the theory, but i feel i am only recently becoming competent in understanding it so maybe one day in the future i will feel different about it, if that is my eternal fate lol.

As far as i can tell, Hoffman has cracked it, he has translated God's eternal divine revelation into plain English, all religion is really about tripping-out on entheogens and experiencing death and rebirth (which is the discovery of timeless determinism). All religious symbols (such as the symbol of the Godman/King nailed to the crucifix) really point to intense entheogenic experiences.

So it is very fitting that he should call himself 'archangel Michael' or a prophet, a saint, a mystic etc. He is the highest human intellect, the man who is closest to God, because he worked out the theory of cybernetic ego transcendence. The mainstream establishment scholars in the official published literature are all clueless and dimwitted about the significance of the altered state.

A big part of my personal journey of understanding has been with psychedelics, ive had some heavenly and some hellish experiences on LSD, including ego death and rebirth, and that is the core subject matter of the ego death theory, ie control loss (cybernetic instability and breakdown) in the psychedelic state. So im curious about how your painkiller addiction is connected to your feelings about egodeath theory (like what do you mean you revised your view on life?), Hoffman has talked about how Alan Watts' alcoholism is likely connected to his philosophical enlightenment, because addiction is an issue centrally related to loss of personal self-control, same as tripping out and experiencing ego death.
  Répondre
Psyche101 a écrit :Your criticisms seem to be more about Michael Hoffman himself and his attitude and writing style, and not about the details of the actual ego death theory. You dont say anything particularly strong against the theory, but you say plenty against the man and his style.

I personally dont share your opinion about the theory, but i feel i am only recently becoming competent in understanding it so maybe one day in the future i will feel different about it, if that is my eternal fate lol.

As far as i can tell, Hoffman has cracked it, he has translated God's eternal divine revelation into plain English, all religion is really about tripping-out on entheogens and experiencing death and rebirth (which is the discovery of timeless determinism). All religious symbols (such as the symbol of the Godman/King nailed to the crucifix) really point to intense entheogenic experiences.

So it is very fitting that he should call himself 'archangel Michael' or a prophet, a saint, a mystic etc. He is the highest human intellect, the man who is closest to God, because he worked out the theory of cybernetic ego transcendence. The mainstream establishment scholars in the official published literature are all clueless and dimwitted about the significance of the altered state.

A big part of my personal journey of understanding has been with psychedelics, ive had some heavenly and some hellish experiences on LSD, including ego death and rebirth, and that is the core subject matter of the ego death theory, ie control loss (cybernetic instability and breakdown) in the psychedelic state. So im curious about how your painkiller addiction is connected to your feelings about egodeath theory (like what do you mean you revised your view on life?), Hoffman has talked about how Alan Watts' alcoholism is likely connected to his philosophical enlightenment, because addiction is an issue centrally related to loss of personal self-control, same as tripping out and experiencing ego death.



Yes and no. Sure i talked much about Micheal but given the extremety of the theory (the maximal entheogen theory), i think it is not irrelevant who"s behind it.
Especially since its rather close to a conspirational theory with an insider (Michael and a few select others) and the dumb masses (unitiated scholars).

Another thing which feels me with great doubt are his findings of secret meanings in music.
  Répondre
jebus a écrit :Yes and no. Sure i talked much about Micheal but given the extremety of the theory (the maximal entheogen theory), i think it is not irrelevant who"s behind it.
Especially since its rather close to a conspirational theory with an insider (Michael and a few select others) and the dumb masses (unitiated scholars).

Another thing which feels me with great doubt are his findings of secret meanings in music.



So far there isnt much substance to your criticism, please could you spell out exactly what you find objectionable about the aspects of the ego death theory that you mention? like Hoffman's theory of Rock song lyrics, or the maximal entheogen theory of religion? Hoffman's central point about the mainstream official scholars is that they completely fail to address the significance of the altered state experiences.

I cannot understand how your view of the theory could have changed, if you used to find value in the maximal entheogen theory of religion, then why do you dismiss its value now? And how is your addiction issues connected to your feelings about ego death theory? Do you interpret addiction as self control struggle per Hoffman?

There is an intellectual pathway that begins with reading the ego death theory and absorbing its central structure - the relationship between self-control, timeless fatedness, psychedelic tripping and finally metaphor. Then the next step on the pathway is to learn to effectively communicate the theory to other people. Im not sure how far ive progressed along the ego death pathway so it would be interesting to see if we can relate to each other about where we disagree.

For example what do you think about Hoffman's idea that the symbol of the Godman Jesus nailed to the cross describes psychedelic ego death/rebirth? Personally i find that idea to be profoundly plausible and resonant with my own personal experiences.

So there are two distinct layers of religion, the exoteric clueless outsiders who are unable to recognise the altered state allusions in the religious symbols/stories and the esoteric psychedelic insiders who can easily recognise all religious symbols/stories as metaphorical references to the altered state experiences, in particular the experience of ego death and rebirth. Hoffman has explained (or modelled) the meaning of the religious symbols and the ego death experience in terms of cybernetic instability and breakdown of the 'ego' self-control mechanism when it perceives timeless determinism in the intense altered state
  Répondre
Psyche101 a écrit :I cannot understand how your view of the theory could have changed, if you used to find value in the maximal entheogen theory of religion, then why do you dismiss its value now? And how is your addiction issues connected to your feelings about ego death theory? Do you interpret addiction as self control struggle per Hoffman?


Of course addiction is centrally a problem of (lack of ) self control. The brain gets "hijacked" basically and i was left with an illusion of control when in truth i had zero control over my life anymore.
It's a hallmark of addiction that the sufferer is not aware of the hole he's in. He think he's got his life still under control but alas - he is run by his addiction.

Citation :There is an intellectual pathway that begins with reading the ego death theory and absorbing its central structure - the relationship between self-control, timeless fatedness, psychedelic tripping and finally metaphor. Then the next step on the pathway is to learn to effectively communicate the theory to other people. Im not sure how far ive progressed along the ego death pathway so it would be interesting to see if we can relate to each other about where we disagree.


I guess that's ok, i just want to warn you how much you dive into that theory and begin to belive, ie. handle it as fact vs. a theorem.

Citation :For example what do you think about Hoffman's idea that the symbol of the Godman Jesus nailed to the cross describes psychedelic ego death/rebirth? Personally i find that idea to be profoundly plausible and resonant with my own personal experiences.

Me too. Maybe, just maybe, this connection is just circumstance.
The thing is: If you want things to mean something, and you use enough time thinking about it, you will see connections. Its just a matter of time.
This can be a dangerous game, especially if one has the tendency to socially isolate oneself.

Citation : So there are two distinct layers of religion, the exoteric clueless outsiders who are unable to recognise the altered state allusions in the religious symbols/stories and the esoteric psychedelic insiders who can easily recognise all religious symbols/stories as metaphorical references to the altered state experiences, in particular the experience of ego death and rebirth. Hoffman has explained (or modelled) the meaning of the religious symbols and the ego death experience in terms of cybernetic instability and breakdown of the 'ego' self-control mechanism when it perceives timeless determinism in the intense altered state



Maybe, maybe not. I think that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SNFo5mdms (maybe logic) is a good way of thinking.
  Répondre
I think it, s important to remember that not everybody believes in god. I know that god is very populair in the usa and americans talk a lot about jezus gawd and the bible. I think it, s no coincedence that north americans came up with the term entheogen.
Seems like americans sometimes forget that words like god jezus and the bible seem to be more important in the usa then in other parts of the world

Personally i do not like the term entheogens because it, s about the god within.
I Would rather like to call them psychedelics. Not everybodu believes in god, but everybody has a psyche.


I have a lot of problems with hoffman, s theory. I think he is full off the well known substance.
Psychedelics should be open to everybody without dogma, s theory, s god jezus or religion.

I think religious freedom to take psychedelics as a sacrement is the wrong way to go. I think everybody should have the freedom to take psychedelics and not only the religious folks.
There should be place for shamanic practice or therapeutic practice with psychedelics.

I have no problems with people using psychedelics as sacrament.
At the moment only members of (christian) churches are allowed to use psychedelic plants in there rituals.
I read there now also is a islamic sufi sect now who is allowed to use ayahuasca.
My point is that i do not think you need to be member of a sect or church to use psychedelics. You do not need to use psychedelics as a sacrament.
Traditional people use it as a medicin. Therapeuts use it in a therapautic way. The religious way is only one path or way to use psychedelics but there are many more.

At the place where i did a ayahuasca ceremony, nobody talked about god or jezus. There was no dogma or theory and there was not a lot of talking at all. It was not about religion it was all about healing. People where free to experience there trip without somebody telling them what to think or what to believe.
  Répondre
I do not believe in ego or ego death. I do not believe in god or religion
It are all labels nothing more. I explain this in the thread i openend about enligthenment awakening and ego death.

I think michael hoffman is trying to be a priest and is giving you (preaching to you) answers. I think his followers like out friemd max freakout (who i love and like for his amazing podcast and for who he is) arr agressively trying to convert other people to believe in god and ego and ego death. They are trying to convert people to this believe in ego and ego death. They do not realise it,s not real, it,s only a label.
  Répondre
A label to describe an experience, no? Smile
  Répondre


Sujets apparemment similaires...
Sujet Auteur Réponses Affichages Dernier message
  What happened to MDMA? What is this Molly crap?!?! High Demand 18 12,643 17/10/2014 18:19
Dernier message: thewire
  has this happened to you??? noise 12 2,628 15/01/2009 00:20
Dernier message: Forkbender

Atteindre :


Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce sujet : 1 visiteur(s)