Maybe This Is Why Terrence Mckenna Died of a Tumor

Just some thoughts on the late and great bard/philosopher.


Perhaps when he stopped smoking weed on a regular basis (to use it only once a week), the anti-tumor/anti-cancer effects of cannabis where not there to block his aggressive tumor.

This is all speculation of course...

Sorry for the messy room in the background.

The News: A Vicarious Spectacle

A vicarious spectacle, the news today exists as a empty shell of what it's initial design and function was and still technically is. The news was made to give the mass public of a democracy the information needed to make informed decisions, so that when the time came to exercise their civic duty (voting, contesting legislation, etc). Unfortunately, today the news acts like the propaganda arm of the government, with side stories of horror and numbing pleasure which act like drainer of an individuals criticism; this turns the individual from active citizen to passive consumer. What a great idea for those in power: keep the masses nullified with entertainment so to not rile them into an active criticism and reform of government policy. Perhaps the way big brother takes over is not by force but subversion and manipulation (at least on the domestic front). Its not so much 1984, but rather like Brave New World.

It fair to say that the mass public shares some of the blame for the news becoming what it is today. It goes without saying that humans do have vicarious and leisurely undertones by nature. But its the media, who are aware of this, actively reinforcing these aspects of ourselves. So although this problem is a two way street, the traffic on the side of the media is heaver as they are consciously manipulating and reinforcing this aspects of ourselves. The viewers traffic is much less as this is mostly an unconscious and tacit reaction to media. Plus the duty of the media is weighted more as the they have a direct hand in shaping popular opinion, unlike most individuals.

The current system has many harmful flaws which need to be corrected in order to endure a more perfect relationship between the government and the people. With out a doubt, the problem stems from the dependence of news agencies on corporate/commercial sponsors This is because of they don't want to make their products look bad. They also make sure not to disrupt the status quo as they are usually the biggest beneficiaries in society (in terms of profit). This causes a top down constriction on what shows up on the news. They filter the stories so as to keep information which would jeopardize the sponsors away from the public. Its plain to see how this benefits some while leaving the rest ignorant to what would otherwise receive unfavorable notice.

A way to better this system of news is to get rid of major corporate sponsors and instill more localized news shows which are publicly funded to reduce bias. This I believe will allow news agencies to both focus on relevant local stories and remove the number of ratings as the prime concern of the station. Following these changes, we can expect the general public to become more politically and socially aware of their environments, leading to beneficial things like less wars and more opportunist and/or entitlements for citizens

In our busy lives we may forget that watching the news is more of an civic duty then a time to sit, relax, and be entertained, as with the rest of TV. Remembering this function of the news can help the people of our society become better citizens by becoming more critical and engaging of government.    

Why does it feel so good?

There are many pleasures in life, some more intense then others. Some feel that these pleasures may be unnatural due to their force or effect. Usually these unnatural pleasures are illegal drugs, although all drugs come either directly or indirectly from nature. What those who use this term “unnatural” miss however is the social constructive factors in their judgment. That is, the only reason they call it unnatural is because their culture or society does not recognize that kind of activity. Case and point: although drug use facilities extreme pleasure, it’s not an unnatural form of it.

In order to clear the socio-cultural bias, lets take a quick look at the neurochemistry of pleasure. When we feel sensations of satisfaction, it is correlated with a neurotransmitter called dopamine. Therefore when you receive good feelings, this chemical is increased in your brain. The so called normal pleasures such as sex and eating only see a release of lets say for example 25-100 level of dopamine (I‘m making these numbers up for illustration). While illegal drugs such as cocaine release about 300-600 level of dopamine.

At first glance it may seem like a very high number worthy of the label unnatural, but this is all relative to and dependent on society. To illustrate: the Amish culture because of their ascetic like behavior may not see a dopamine level higher then 30 or 40. While our entertainment saturated culture sees much higher dopamine levels. Therefore the society or culture is what determines the range of dopamine levels. It just happens that certain societies which have utilized certain technologies to increase pleasure then would naturally, have their range of pleasure reach higher.

A very interesting and relevant fact is that when a psychoactive or illegal drug enters one’s body, the brain quickly knows exactly what to do with the chemical. It seems as if the brain was evolved to metabolize these substances because of their selective binding to brain receptors. It’s as if the brain was full of key holes and psychoactive drugs were the matching keys (this is not true of all drugs, just the most used and known). If one would to inject a substance that is truly unnatural into the brain, it wouldn’t be able to use and metabolize it so quickly. It would rather bounce around in the brain, perhaps disrupting or damaging parts of it. But instead many of these drugs (in the proper dose) when entering the brain are dealt with quickly and in a uniform machine like manner. The brain knows (or acts like) how to use these drugs. This is the definition of a natural/biological action.

As a result of dopamine being the biological substrate of pleasure, it serves to clear any socio-cultural bias in investigating what are “natural” and “unnatural” pleasures. Drugs although they seem unnatural in their pleasure giving actions, are natural because of both the arbitrary definitions of pleasure by culture/society, and the brains ability to quickly and efficiently metabolize many psychoactive drugs, as if the brain was adapted to do so.  

Dreamless Sleep as the Getaway Car

Break up time into flames
Watch it burn away
I cant stand the smell
Its worse then remembering
Sick plastic chemical
Shooting up my nose into my brain…

Erasing the yet to be
Forgetting the once was
Diluting attention from single points  
Oceanic anti-perspectives
From start to finish, it was all water in water

Fading with the breeze
Focusing on the existing now
Ever fleeting yet embracing
Tying all the corners together,
Causes weight to dampen
As the soul rises toward sleep    

Drug Holiday

In thinking about a possible society where recreational (or responsible adult use) of psychoactive drugs has been legitimated and integrated successfully, I thought about a possible phenomenon that could arise in such a situation.

In the same way a person or group will go on vacation a few times a year (saving up money, planning head, and entering a different mode of reality outside of the ordinary) one could go on a drug holiday or vacation.

This would mean that someone would schedule a period of time to indulge in whatever their substance(s) of choice is/are. The resulting high or “intoxication” could be seen as time away from the usual self, much like a traditional vacation or holiday is time away from home.        

So there you have it, a potential glimpse of what a society with a humane drug policy would be like.

A Talk Between Two

A conversation between two imaginary philosophers.


Why do anything?

What are you talking about?

I said: why do anything at all? Like why do u do what u do?

Well I don’t know. It depends on the situation.

So give me an example?

I go to work so I can make money in order to live so I don’t die.

Why don’t you want to die?

There are experiences I want to have, plus I don’t know what’s to come after death.

But if you die, what difference would it make if you had them or not?

Your being really nihilistic. I’m alive so I want to keep on living because it feels good to be apart of the world.

No, you cant face up to the fact that you‘re a machine. You exist only to carry out routines and habits. What makes a human any different from a machine?

We have feelings and experiences which machines just don’t have.

You don’t know that for sure. It may be possible that consciousness is realizable in more then just brains. Perhaps in non-carbon forms like silicon or plasma.  To think otherwise would make you some kind of brain-meat chauvinist. Humans are just machines with a distorted sense of self identity. A GENE MACHINE!

What’s with the anger? Are you mad at your situation? I don’t mind being a machine, what ever that means. Seems like you do though.

You don’t seem to understand. Let me make this perfectly clear for you. Your sense of free will is an illusion. Your sense of self exists in order to veto certain behaviors while solving never ending problems. That’s why humans like drama, it simulates the problems their brains are supposed to solve.

We all like a good story, but its nothing worth working yourself up about. I feel like I’m in control, that’s all that matters. So will you carry on with your day, or will you keep on pestering me with your nihilistic delusions?

I’m just trying to send some truth your way.

For what? To make me miserable? You with your materialistic worldview of truth needs some modification. I suggest you read about the philosophy of pragmatism and what it has to say about truth. It proposes truth to be what works for the individual. What works for me is what feels good. If I need to look past some material factoid that changes with each new scientific instrument, then so be it. Feeling good works for me, so that becomes my truth.

But scientific realism is the sensible truth. It’s based on evidence!

What qualifies as evidence is dependent upon what bubble your in. You happen to be inside of a rational/empirical bubble. We all have our bubbles. Mine is a pragmatic one. In your bubble evidence means repeatable experience behind a theory. For me, evidence is what works practically for a person. For a religious person, evidence may be their doctrine. So you see, your factoids don’t bother my sense of well being.

Your in denial! These are the facts which make up the universe!

That’s if you define the universe as what you can measure outside of yourself.  

We are at an impasse.

No, we are in our separate bubbles.

Any way out of the bubble?

That would be to die. To live, is to include. To include,  is to exclude. To have a self is to have an other. No way out the bubble as long as you are a you. To go back to what you first said, I don’t think your idea of truth is working well for you.

That would all depend on my definition of what works, something you have no idea about.

What a way to use what I said against me. Touché!

Yeah, whatever gene machine.  

The Case of Belief

In the intellectual world of arguing and sharing points of view, people may become concerned about belief. They may ask or presume that if one argues a point, one necessarily believes it. I, taking cue from Terrence McKenna (at times, when being consistent), say that I like to argue the case of whether or not X is true, good, just, etc. But, to argue the case for or against, does not imply belief. It’s more of a functional term relating to the facts of the situation itself- devoid of the personal. In this sense, it becomes more like a game: we argue by comparing and contrasting cases. This does not involve the personality of the persons involved, which means their belief systems. It is true that their personalities affect how they argue/discuss, but it does not become a factor in the how they consciously evaluate the given cases. This way, we discuss and argue to our hearts content, without the worry of believing anything, as that does not apply to the game of comparing and contrasting the cases for things.