4 ms·

There's a reason that he was on shows like Art Bell's. Not quite the guy I'd be quoting in a discussion of science.

by noarchy 15y ago

Alex3917 15y ago
"Not quite the guy I'd be quoting in a discussion of science." He didn't really believe in mainstream science though, and the fact that he's actually able to make a really intelligent and often convincing argument for his views is part of what makes him so interesting. He was definitely interested in a lot of fringe stuff as well, but he always has really good explanations for why we should take various things seriously. Certainly he had a lot of faults, and was needlessly sloppy or overenthusiastic in many cases, but overall he's got to be one of the most intellectually interesting people of the last couple hundred years.
- gjm11 15y ago
  > one of the most intellectually interesting people of the last couple hundred years. So, that would be since about 1800. In science and mathematics, that would put him in competition with Gauss, Einstein, Darwin, Maxwell, Turing. In philosophy: Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein. Not to mention harder-to-pigeonhole people like, say, Goethe. You think he belongs in the same list as those guys? Really?
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    It wouldn't make sense to compare him to those guys because he mostly didn't come up with big theories of his own. He was just very well read in all of the above and used their ideas combined with science to call bullshit on mainstream ideas, figure out which questions were the most important, and speculate about the nature of the universe and the human condition. (Much like a modern day Socrates.) Depending on what you give him credit for I do ultimately think he may be able to hold his own with any of the above, not in terms of coming up with novel theories, but in terms of being able to see what's important and set the agenda for humanity for the next 500 years. But again like Socrates (perhaps Plato) he came up with a lot of bullshit too, so it's important not to throw critical thinking out the window.
    - gjm11 15y ago
      Could you perhaps be more specific? I'm no McKenna expert, but so far as I can tell (1) calling bullshit on mainstream ideas, as such, is commonplace and does little to "set the agenda for humanity for the next 500 years" and (2) McKenna hasn't, in fact, provided any ideas we have any reason to think will stand us in better stead for the next 500 years than, say, the conventional wisdom would. So would you care to give some examples of what McKenna's said that will "set the agenda of humanity for the next 500 years" and explain your reasons for thinking they'll do so? (For the avoidance of doubt: (1) I am not claiming that the current conventional wisdom is in fact all we need for the next 500 years, just doubting whether what McKenna has to offer is any better; (2) I am not claiming that McKenna has had no good ideas or insights; perhaps he has, but so probably have any number of stoned undergraduates; what's useful is producing good ideas that can be identified as such and distinguished from the dross.)
      - Alex3917 15y ago
        "So would you care to give some examples of what McKenna's said that will 'set the agenda of humanity for the next 500 years' and explain your reasons for thinking they'll do so?" So it's very difficult to do this because most of the ideas he espouses aren't really his. I think his main contribution was in combining a wide range of ideas into a compelling worldview. - His ideas about the fragility of scientific knowledge, its dubious epistemology, e.g. the importance of the anomalous. - His ideas about the unsustainability of consumer civilization - His ideas about the epistemological implications of DMT and psilocybin, and drugs in general - His ideas about using drugs to discover new ideas (IIRC in this talk: http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=328 http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=328) - His ideas about the singularity and teleology - His idea about drugs have shaped human culture over the millennia, and possibly also human evolution. - His focus on the big questions like who are we, why are we here, where are we going, etc. - The way he was able to find elements of validity in paradigms that have long been outright discarded such as shamanism, alchemy, various spiritual traditions, etc. It's unclear what impact McKenna will ultimately have because it's hard to predict how people will react to living in a world that's running out of material resources, a world with 100x as many academic studies as there are now, a world with unimaginable technology and suffering, etc. But based on how things seem to be going, it's really hard to see how science can remain indefinitely divorced from philosophy and the humanities, which is sort of the essence of his worldview. It's difficult to see him ever getting credit for much because his ideas would definitely need to be cleaned up by others and reformulated before having a wider impact, and so it's unclear how he would be credited since most aren't really his ideas to begin with. But I still think a lot of the many of the things he espoused are going to be increasingly more important in the future than they are today.

There's a reason that he was on shows like Art Bell's. Not quite the guy I'd be quoting in a discussion of science.

by noarchy 15y ago

There's a reason that he was on shows like Art Bell's. Not quite the guy I'd be quoting in a discussion of science.

"Not quite the guy I'd be quoting in a discussion of science." He didn't really believe in mainstream science though, and the fact that he's actually able to make a really intelligent and often convincing argument for his views is part of what makes him so interesting. He was definitely interested in a lot of fringe stuff as well, but he always has really good explanations for why we should take various things seriously. Certainly he had a lot of faults, and was needlessly sloppy or overenthusiastic in many cases, but overall he's got to be one of the most intellectually interesting people of the last couple hundred years.

gjm11 15y ago
> one of the most intellectually interesting people of the last couple hundred years. So, that would be since about 1800. In science and mathematics, that would put him in competition with Gauss, Einstein, Darwin, Maxwell, Turing. In philosophy: Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein. Not to mention harder-to-pigeonhole people like, say, Goethe. You think he belongs in the same list as those guys? Really?
- Alex3917 15y ago
  It wouldn't make sense to compare him to those guys because he mostly didn't come up with big theories of his own. He was just very well read in all of the above and used their ideas combined with science to call bullshit on mainstream ideas, figure out which questions were the most important, and speculate about the nature of the universe and the human condition. (Much like a modern day Socrates.) Depending on what you give him credit for I do ultimately think he may be able to hold his own with any of the above, not in terms of coming up with novel theories, but in terms of being able to see what's important and set the agenda for humanity for the next 500 years. But again like Socrates (perhaps Plato) he came up with a lot of bullshit too, so it's important not to throw critical thinking out the window.
  - gjm11 15y ago
    Could you perhaps be more specific? I'm no McKenna expert, but so far as I can tell (1) calling bullshit on mainstream ideas, as such, is commonplace and does little to "set the agenda for humanity for the next 500 years" and (2) McKenna hasn't, in fact, provided any ideas we have any reason to think will stand us in better stead for the next 500 years than, say, the conventional wisdom would. So would you care to give some examples of what McKenna's said that will "set the agenda of humanity for the next 500 years" and explain your reasons for thinking they'll do so? (For the avoidance of doubt: (1) I am not claiming that the current conventional wisdom is in fact all we need for the next 500 years, just doubting whether what McKenna has to offer is any better; (2) I am not claiming that McKenna has had no good ideas or insights; perhaps he has, but so probably have any number of stoned undergraduates; what's useful is producing good ideas that can be identified as such and distinguished from the dross.)
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      "So would you care to give some examples of what McKenna's said that will 'set the agenda of humanity for the next 500 years' and explain your reasons for thinking they'll do so?" So it's very difficult to do this because most of the ideas he espouses aren't really his. I think his main contribution was in combining a wide range of ideas into a compelling worldview. - His ideas about the fragility of scientific knowledge, its dubious epistemology, e.g. the importance of the anomalous. - His ideas about the unsustainability of consumer civilization - His ideas about the epistemological implications of DMT and psilocybin, and drugs in general - His ideas about using drugs to discover new ideas (IIRC in this talk: http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=328 http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=328) - His ideas about the singularity and teleology - His idea about drugs have shaped human culture over the millennia, and possibly also human evolution. - His focus on the big questions like who are we, why are we here, where are we going, etc. - The way he was able to find elements of validity in paradigms that have long been outright discarded such as shamanism, alchemy, various spiritual traditions, etc. It's unclear what impact McKenna will ultimately have because it's hard to predict how people will react to living in a world that's running out of material resources, a world with 100x as many academic studies as there are now, a world with unimaginable technology and suffering, etc. But based on how things seem to be going, it's really hard to see how science can remain indefinitely divorced from philosophy and the humanities, which is sort of the essence of his worldview. It's difficult to see him ever getting credit for much because his ideas would definitely need to be cleaned up by others and reformulated before having a wider impact, and so it's unclear how he would be credited since most aren't really his ideas to begin with. But I still think a lot of the many of the things he espoused are going to be increasingly more important in the future than they are today.