![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Daniel Pinchbeck Colbert Report Video
Here’s the original link for this, although I couldn’t get it to play via the Comedy Central website. That site was slow and buggy as heck.
And part two, without further ado, so you don’t have to go hunting for it…
So I’m curious to hear what people think of all this. Does Daniel Pinchbeck actually having something useful to say or does the dude just have a totally top-notch publicist?
Honestly, I haven’t heard a *single* person who’s interested in the fields Pinchbeck talks about even mention his new 2012 book. For someone who is not trying to be the new Timothy Leary, he’s sure done a good job of moving focus away from his ideas onto his person. It may be just something that happens inadvertently to people who get sucked up into the capitalist technocracy-fame machine, though. It’s hard to say.
This clip is really interesting to me though if only for the reason that I think Colbert “makes more sense.” That is, Pinchbeck seems to be trying to cram all these ideas and factoids into what should otherwise be a fairly ordinary and pleasant human interaction, an interview, a meeting among friends or colleagues. But it just comes off as extremely flat, forced, and honestly quite boring - which is remarkable considering the subject matter. Watching it, I was trying to project myself into the headspace of a “typical” Comedy Central viewer who has probably only a passing experience with drugs in college and knows little to nothing about the vagaries of contemporary post-modern intellectualized spirituality. And I couldn’t decide if they would be intrigued by Pinchbeck or put off by what he’s saying within the context of their lives.
I don’t mean to use Pinchbeck as my personal whipping post (since I’m as guilty of it as anyone), but it’s becoming more and more apparent to me just how cut off from “real life” a lot of this type of stuff tends to be. People like us get sucked really far into a weird-ass headspace, locked away in our basements and then when we’re brought out into the light of day, there can often be a big disconnect with “regular” reality, no matter how spiritually advanced we may believe ourselves to be.
Anyway, I guess that’s my two cents on it…
December 19th, 2006 at 12:06 am
i read breaking open the head and liked it for what it was, but really daniel pinchbeck’s thing seems to be writing superficial surveys of other people’s ideas and making them accessible for the pitchfork media crowd. so i guess i think if he has anything interesting to say, it’s something someone else said first. there seems to be a lot of talk going around about the cosmic importance of entheogens, but not so much any practical instruction for how to use entheogenic substances for spiritual purposes—that to me says all i need to know about the motivation behind the spectacle of discourse.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:44 am
I haven’t read 2012, but I read Breaking Open the Head. It was, as Joe Chip says, an oversimplification of whatever it was he was trying to say. There’s so much serious thought on entheogens, the paranormal, magic, and politics, and Pinchbeck seems to have missed all of it. It’s a pleasant personal narrative, but that’s about it. I think perhaps the major reason anyone cares about Pinchbeck is that the 2012 theory is getting a lot more credence. Personally, I really doubt the only assertion he made during the interview - that somehow there will be a unification between science and mysticism. There’s too much interest vested in science tied to big money. Yeah, crop circles are getting more complicated. Yeah, some New Agey fluffy types think it’s the end of the world. Yeah, technology is rapidly accelerating. But Williams Gibson’s vision of the future is a hell of a lot more likely than Pinchbeck’s.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I did think Pinchbeck came off a lot more down to earth in this interview, despite being nervous (or maybe because of it) than in this video you posted awhile back, where I was put off by him immediately. I’m still not inclined to read his books any more than I was before, and I think the average Colbert viewer tends to judge the guest on how well s/he holds up under the pressure of the Colbert Interview itself. Pinchbeck wasn’t all that ‘down’ with it, so I doubt too many Colbert fans were impressed with him as a result.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Personally, I thought this was a decent interview… The primary review that was made, here, seems to contradict itself, saying that Pinchbeck has “done a good job of moving focus away from his ideas onto his person” (thus suggesting that it’s too personal, and that we are lacking the “meat” of Pichbecks ideas), and then a sentence or two later the reviewer says that “Pinchbeck seems to be trying to cram all these ideas and factoids into what should otherwise be a fairly ordinary and pleasant human interaction, an interview, a meeting among friends or colleagues” (NOW suggesting that it’s not personal enough, and that there’s too much “meat” of Pinchbecks ideas.
Go figure.
Responding to the reveiwer’s idea that viewers may be “put off by what (Pinchbeck) is saying within the context of their lives”, and how “how cut off from ‘real life’ a lot of this type of stuff tends to be”– I really don’t understand, seeing as Pinchbeck used clear examples that EVERYONE experiences (ie. sychronicities, precognitive impulses, etc.).
Perhaps not everyone is like the reveiwer, who admits to getting “sucked really far into a weird-ass headspace, locked away in (his/her) basements and then when (he/she) is brought out into the light of day, there can often be a big disconnect with “regular” reality, no matter how spiritually advanced (he/she) may believe (himself/herself) to be.
I think that– like the culture at large– the reviewer perhaps has uncomfortable feelings and a judgmental mind towards the topic of psychedelics in general, and therefore is biased towards ANYTHING that Pinchbeck has to say.
I think Pinchbeck has done a great credit to those who embrace the synapic changes in consciousness that I think EVERYONE can at least ADMIT that we, as a species, are evolving into… He HAS complied the recourses of many others into one, easy-to-handle format, but has also explored these dimensions of thought and consciousness– as well as the Shamanic tribes of several native peoples– FIRST HAND, and now writes to US, telling us of what he has learned, and being yet another messenger to offer us tools for which we may GROW as individuals and as a race… Giving us tools for which we may best respond to the coming times which will be seen as APOCALYPTIC to those whose minds are not primed for the next big evelutionary shift. I’m not talking trippy-hippy “vibes”. I’m talking about evolution, and the reality that our FOUR YEAR OLDS can process things mentally that our EIGHTYFOUR YEAR OLDS cannot… Our minds are evolving at an ASTOUNDINGLY accelerated rate, even though our bodies remain homo-sapien, and something hugely cataclysmic is impending for many of us. To better understand what is happening may place us that much further along the Evolutionary Ladder, helping us during a time of “Survival Of The Consciously Fittest”.
Or, we can just sit in our basements, ripping on people and concepts we know little about.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:32 am
D’oh! But that’s what *I* was trying to do!!
December 19th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Well, what is it that he is trying to say?
Really? Well what you recommend as more serious thought for people interested in the subject to feed themselves with? Why do you think Pinchbeck “missed” all this?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Hahah. Oh yeah, the comparison between the two sure is telling, I think! He comes off as a lot more “superior” in the other video from NYU or wherever
December 19th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Yeah, I don’t watch much television at all and actually don’t like the Colbert show, but I get what you’re saying. People are judged on their ability to “play along with the gag.”
I guess a major part of what I am saying is that you can tell that Pinchbeck wasn’t very good at playing along with the gag. Not that I think Colbert’s is necessarily a good gag, but it was interesting nonetheless.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Operative word being “seems.” I never EVER contradict myself, you puny earthlings!
I can see why you would misinterpret what I was saying as it was halfway tongue in cheek. What I was referring to was the recent Rolling Stone hack job that came out and ripped Pinchbeck a new one very effectively:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006...chbeck-and-the-new-psychedelic-elite/
I don’t actually think that it was Pinchbeck *himself* who moved things in this personal direction. But I do think he sort of opened himself up to it by (A) making himself, his character and reputation part of his subject matter, and (B) using that s a platform to try and make himself into a leader within the field of spirituality.
So him being considered at “celebrity” status now only makes sense. And I personally think he likes it - but then, who wouldn’t?
No, thats’s not what I meant at all. See my comments about “playing along with the gag” above. But also see what I wrote here about erasing personal history:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/12/09/erasing-personal-history/
I personally don’t see him as have done enough of that; he is clearly clinging to the story he tells about himself. And I see it very much hindering his ability to move forward with his ideas…
Well I guess you just have a better understanding of the experiences of EVERYONE IN THE WORLD than I do. Congratulation! That must be very gratifying.
Ha ha ha. Try again!
No, I don’t think we as a species are evolving into any such thing. We’re simply living our lives and the sooner we can deal with the *now* rather than the magical fairyland future, the better off we’ll be.
I don’t personally find his format all that easy to handle. Just because I don’t though doesn’t mean that you can’t or that you shouldn’t. I’m getting the sense that you’re somehow personally wounded by my remarks here. I wish that weren’t the case, but I can’t manage anyone else’s emotional reactions. All I can do is be honest about mine!
You put that in a very interesting way. Why do we need Daniel Pinchbeck or anyone else to go out and gather tools for us? Shouldn’t the whole point of psychedelic exploration be that we can do it for ourselves? We can’t live vicariously through anyone else’s spirituality, as tempting as that may be.
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/11/30/vicarious-spirituality/
No, what you are talking about is cultural adaptation. Not biological adaptation. Most reputable scientific sources would I think agree that we have changed almost not at all biologically since Cro-Magnon man forked off the evolutionary tree.
Why do you say that? Do you have a feeling of dread? Of impending doom? Where does that feeling come from? With a perception you have within yourself and your own life, I would wager. This is simply *not* a verifiable external thing which is DESTINED to happen. No one can conclusively say that.
And if they can, well then I can tell them that I can conclusively say it’s NOT going to happen. And now we’re even.
I’ve never liked this elitist edge to the various consciousness movements. I find it dangerous and unsavory.
Exactly! And that’s where *real change* needs to start, with each one of us in the private moments of our lives, not in televised “spiritual” events which are broadcast across the nation and world.
I’m curious also if when you said I know “little about” the subject you knew that I had actually interviewed Pinchbeck extensively on this site over a year ago. Its a very thought-provoking interview. You might actually enjoy it!
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005...terview-with-daniel-pinchbeck-part-1/
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005...terview-with-daniel-pinchbeck-part-2/
Cheers and no hard feelings! I’m not here to fight, but hopefully to communicate. I know I do sometimes get the two mixed up though. But I can’t help it as I am emotionally connected to the subject matter and sorting through it is a major part of my life.
I hope that gives you a better understanding of where I was coming from in my comments above!
December 19th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Tim, i don’t agree with that. It has to be with McLuhan theories “medium is the message etc”. Since we have grown with videogames, TV, our senses, our perception has changed (and it has to be with biology if you think in brain plasticity and all that things).
The fact of reading left to right or right to left shapes the way we perceive the world; MTV videos are breaking lineal conceptions of time and logic taking our thinking closest to “altered states” and chaotic thinking that were a very important way to think in ancient cultures; media shapes brain.
Personally, I think Pinchbeck did a nice work with BOTH (and he says frequently that including his role in the book has to be with “seduce” the reader). Haven’t readed 2012 yet, but yes, it seems that he has been seduced by his narrative.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:01 am
I think the fact that Pinchbeck puts so much of himself into the book is directly related to his belief in the importance of balancing the rational and the irrational, i.e. the objective and the subjective. Just as an analytical psychologist can’t interpret a patient without knowing the patient’s personal history and cognitive state, the inexperienced reader can’t grasp the message of Pinchbeck’s book without grasping the man himself. As in psychedelics, the set and setting are inseparable from the trip.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:25 am
(and yes, I know that same blockquote was in a comment above; I copied and pasted it from that comment)
I think this is what Buddhist Brad Warner is trying to warn about when he discourages using drugs to alter consciousness (See “The Golden State” on this site and the discussion about it). I can’t say I’m against consciousness-altering drugs; I just have to admit my brain is weaker than other people’s and so those things are not good for me, even though I’ve tried absinthe and may get convinced to do it again.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Hear, hear.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:55 am
yeah it’s pretty clear those consciousness elitists aren’t going to make it through the bottleneck at the end of history.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Wow!
A wild range of ideas and opinions on a interview! While we can pick and pierce through other’s comments…it’s refreshing to read a variety of minds speaking in a variety of ways.
It seems like Pinchbeck has been the media victim in both this video interview, and in the RollingStone rag’s article.
Are we evolving? that can answered in many limitless ways. For Tim it seems a resounding no. For Force a resounding yes.
There appears a answer is in the space between thoughts.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:25 am
“yeah it’s pretty clear those consciousness elitists aren’t going to make it through the bottleneck at the end of history. ”
Who can really know what or who will! That seems also very eltist of you to single out elitists that are different to your opinions, convictions, and limiting beliefs.
How many elitists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I read BOTH when it was fresh on the shelves before Pinchbeck was singled out and labeled a new Leary. The book was a eye opening read to me as I’m not into Psychedelics myself. No matter what Imho it takes alot of balls to pour personal history into the printed medium.
There’s many things that I disagree with Mr.Pinchbeck on. I choose not to taint my opinion of him despite those differences. We have the choice not to be a slave to our “limits”.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
More scrutiny for this paragraph!
A fair point in general, but relating to this video - since when is an interview on TV “real life”? (Take that as rhetorical Tim - I know you could give some quite in-depth answers to this question!
It is hard to discuss the subtleties of spirituality in the public arena - whether that’s with acquaintances in a pub or on live national TV. Obviously, the high-pressure soundbite atmosphere of TV would be at the harder end of the spectrum. We probably do need people flowing a little more with the frivolity of TV than Daniel did here, in order to get serious, subtle ideas across with coming across as not being “down” with the revered way that information’s thrown about in media and entertainment.
Part of me steps back from this and thinks, “Well, there’s a reason this shit’s been esoteric until very recently…” An individualist view can see the situation as being the problem of individuals who haven’t learned to adapt to society and its means of expression. Obviously there’s plenty of people with this issue, in every arena. But with esoteric spirituality, there’s also the wider social issue, that our culture has lost even rudiments of a language for this realm - even the stuff that was never esoteric. Not language just in terms of individual words, but common reference points, turns of phrase, familiar structures, etc. Efforts to re-forge this language are bound to be faltering… but are probably part of the trip (if we’re looking at a shamanic responsibility towards the community rather than a kind of occultist individualism).
I think Daniel’s a good writer covering some fascinating ideas, but what stands out to me about all these nonsensical claims about him being the new Leary, McKenna or Huxley is that it reflects something about our culture. Maybe we’re just not generating these singular figures anymore: things have become too complex for any one person to sum it up convincingly to a large number of people, and the real insights are happening at a more collective level that seems nebulous to us mere individuals. But, we’re clinging to the idea that there need to be global figureheads.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
in the interest of being fair, i tried to pin down exactly what it is about pinchbeck that annoys me so much.
partly it’s his blithe unawareness of his effect on the overall cultural debate on these matters. his mumbling, inarticulate, apologetic, and supplicant presentation seems disingenuous to me. it’s clear he wants attention, but he’s afraid to display any real convictions in the face of public disapproval. as if the one thing we all need to do is approach the wider culture on bended knee and everything will turn out all right. it’s one thing to play the fool, but that’s not what he’s doing. he takes himself way more seriously than he’s willing to admit to.
i understand the impulse to bring ‘the message’ to the masses, but if you do it in such a shifty, elusive and fundamentaly dishonest way, it can’t help but ring hollow from front to back.
if you’ve got something to say, then fucking say it already. you’ll feel a lot better, but someone might actually laugh in your face. life sucks. get a helmet.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I can’t agree with this for many reasons. The Kali Yuga can get a LOT more ironclad before its possibilities are exhausted. The power-source of our maladjusted science is INEXHAUSTIBLE. (It’s not oil, it’s Nature.)
Can you imagine things getting worse? Easily. There you go. Therefore our hope should not be in the world but in the same animating spirit that drives both unconscious mechanism, rarefied plants and animals of impossible beauty, and our own selves.
I dig. He probably can’t get a book published (for instance) if he goes all-out, but… in the face of what he proposes, who gives a fuck about getting a book published?
December 19th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I don’t really agree with that. Or I don’t agree that he is an unwilling victim
December 19th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
It also takes a lot of balls to destroy your personal history!
Absolutely right! I’m speaking in generalizations!
Right, that’s exactly what I’m reacting against. There do *not* need to be global or any figureheads at all. Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas: “I am not your master”
I’m still not certain either that anything needs to be brought to the masses at all…
There are many fundamental steps which people individually need to accomplish way before that. Because otherwise our efforts to “get the word out” become a substitution for the hard work each and every one of us needs to do
December 19th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
It also drives me bonkers that this post has been the subject of way stronger debate and emotional reaction than any of the far more interesting stuff we’ve been talking about here lately
December 19th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Personalities arouse stronger feelings than ideas (at least they do in TV Land). Maybe that’s the real reason for these ‘figureheads’ - they’re balls for us to knock about to thrash out our feelings about what they represent.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Wow, could you possibly find a better parallel to the Christian tendency to hyperfocus on evangelism and conversion? Possibly because of the roots of the ‘psychedelic counterculture’ in historically Christian America.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Wow, very well put. It’s much easier for us to have strong feelings about tangible people with faces, behaviors and clothing than it is for us to have feelings about totally intangible abstract ideas.
That is a seriously important lesson for me and thank you for bringing it out of all this chaos.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
What about the weird ass Christmas figure set these guys are talking on - with the Lamb of God in between them - a lamb which you know neither man actually respects. Colbert is only phoney respecting it and I’m sure Pinchbeck doesn’t care. Very freaking odd!
December 20th, 2006 at 2:32 am
There are quite a few messages that I think need to get out to the “masses,” actually. No, I’m not thinking about turning the publci on to drugs or magick, although the messages can be found in the esoteric and the occult, buried beneath a lot of the more… well, esoteric stuff. Messages like, taking deeper breaths will reduce stress, making you happier, seriously improve your life. You don’t have to and perhaps should not willingly feel negative emotions like stress and guilt. We create “reality” and are therefore responsible for crafting a good one; also, other people’s realities differ from our own and we might therefore want to avoid becoming inflexible in our beliefs. So if there’s a message that needs to be brought to the masses—and I believe there is—it’s that they don’t have to suffer the way they do, that there is hope.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Holy shit Joe Chip - that was amazing! Way to turn this around. I’m gonna post your comments as a separate item because - well, because they’re fucking awesome and you just summed it all up for me.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
people aren`t after happy. happy isn`t sexy, amazing, fantasic or cool.
pinchbeck was selling his book. it was an infomercial for 2012. the content is virtually immaterial within the context of the interview. daniel would be the first to tell you that most of what he experienced with the hopi is impossible to put into words anyway.
it was refreshing to see that pinchbeck did burst colbert`s bubble by telling him that he was nervous. colbert`s only recourse at that point was to back off and begin to have an adult conversation selling the book……..otherwise he ran the risk of being seen as taking advantage…….
pinchbeck is a bright guy, a keen professional blending his real experiences as a tripper with his desire to make money as an author and lecturer.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Thanks for the extremely mingy comments on my Colbert appearance. What shines through, for me, is adolescent envy on the part of Boucher and many other voices here. I am quite disappointed in you, Tim. Your interview with me was well researched and well-done - since then, you seem to take pleasure in insulting me and putting me down for no reason that I can figure. This doesn’t seem very enlightened or elevated behavior on your part. But hey, if it gives you a little ego rush, why not go for it?
As a rule, it is extremely easy to criticize, and quite difficult to accomplish anything meaningful. Personally, I am happy with my Colbert appearance. It was a great opportunity to “ping” the mainstream consciousness with a bit of info about psychedelics and consciousness transformation.
Unlike Boucher, I do suspect that we are in a process of accelerated consciousness evolution and planetary transformation. Either we mature out of our current adolescent state, individually and collectively, or we are going to see our world fall apart with extreme rapidity.
Half of all species will be extinct in 50 years, at current rates, along with total collapse of the ocean fisheries. I was in Central Park last weekend, and flowers were blooming that usually don’t come out until March - we have no winter to speak of, and this is (once again) one of the five warmest winters on record. At this point, to not recognize that we are at a critical threshold for our species is an act of willful stupidity.
As one writer above noted, I had little choice but to write about my own personal history and psychology because “2012″ is partially about the necessity of subjectivity and the impossibility of objectivity - also, this is part of my literary legacy. My mother is a memoirist (author of “Minor Characters”). When I quoted Don Juan to the Rolling Stone writer about giving up my personal history, I was only being half-humorous. It was her hang-up and not mine. I wonder how all of you would stand up to the same slanted scrutiny.
Why not have a productive discussion on how to bring esoteric and psychedelic information into the mainstream, if you don’t like my approach? Of course, it is much easier to put down people who are doing this difficult work, and give yourself a feeling of smug superiority in the process.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Haha. No, its not envy at all. But I can see why you’d interpret it that way. It has to do with my failure to communicate more clearly, which I regret that I am not better at. But I stand by everything I’ve said. It was all said from a place of honesty and with a hope to actually drive a conversation in a productive direction. These things aren’t always and shouldn’t necessarily be easy of course. I recognize that and accept the blame for any failings on my part. But you’re a big boy Daniel, you can handle the criticism.
Um, isn’t that what we’re doing?
Take care!
December 20th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
i just skimmed the comments and, ok, has anyone actually read 2012 yet? i read it months ago, and loved it. it’s definitely a different beast than breaking open the head. i’ve made each of my friends read it and i dont understand why anyone who is interested in the 2012 phenomenon wouldnt at least give it a look
December 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Touche, Firewater!
Also, let’s all make fun of Pinchbeck for thinking we’re envious of him, ’cause we’re such adolescents!
December 20th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
You know, DP is right. It seems a little silly to criticize what he’s doing considering that the majority of Americans will never see psychedelics (or even marijuana) as anything other than dangerous or evil, let alone accept a wacky newage apocalyptic theory because the drugs said so. I’m thinking about how my parents, grandparents, even some of my friends would perceive the Colbert interview… and few of them would find it relevant. I don’t even think it’s relevant to the problems the planet faces: why the hell would turning people on to hallucinogens help with the global warming situation? That leap of faith (or in industry terms “non sequitur”) requires a naive trust in the kumbaya power of an external agent to change people.
So… will the massive environmental changes brought on by global warming be catastrophic to the planet and to life? No, of course not. Nature will simply pick up the pieces as always and press forward with evolution. Of course, we talking apes might get fucked big time. Given that situation, I think it’s better to encourage people to find the strength to change within themselves, rather than in a mushroom cap or a peyote button—however powerful those substances may be, and I know from experience they are powerful.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
I might also add that the less people are scandalized by theories and practices they would consider blasphemous, the better. There’s no need to take the bull by the horns. As long as people can breath… and relax… they can relinquish their choke-hold on things, and we can ease into a lifestyle that won’t lead to our extinction.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:43 am
The psychedelic opening of the 1960s led to the hippies, which led to the environmental movement. Psychedelics help you bypass society’s filters to reconnect with the natural physical reality underlying modern society’s abstractions. I do not think they are in themselves “the answer,” but can be of great help in deconditioning people from their beliefs and social programming.
I support breathing also - but don’t think it is an “either or” situatoin.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
What about the conservation movement before that?
I also think it would be pretty great if mainstream society got turned on to psychedelics. But quick reality check: Is it likely to happen before we’re already up shit creek with the environment? I doubt it. There’s too much cultural inertia, too many entrenched prejudices against non-psychiatric drugs, IMO. But here’s another question—even if we did get, say, 60% of Americans to try psychedelics, how many of them would hate the experience afterwards and shun anything they associate with it? How many of them would, like a typical high school kid on LSD, just see it as a fun way to pass their free time and not glean any spiritual or “consciousness” benefits from it? What’s required before they even try psychedelics is the right approach to the drugs. Moreover, it’s a lot to assume that once people are deconditioned from their social programming, they will jump on the environmental bandwagon and let themselves be reconditioned by another social paradigm.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I don’t want to get 60% of Americans to try psychedelics- I agree with McKenna it is about quality, not quantity. In tribal societies, only one of 20 people, roughly, would be a shaman - it is a hard job!
One way to look at our current crisis (by the way, we are in a global environmental crisis of massive proportions, right now) is as an initiation crisis. For men, especially ,the passage into adulthood in tribal and aboriginal cultures requires a direct experience and mastery of non-ordinary states - without this, men cannot enter adulthood. What we have is a culture of ego-centric adolescents - the “post-modern flatland” described by Wilber (or “the blob” in the great book, Mediated). So we need to reaccess some understanding of initiatory practices and actual techniques of initiation that fit our modern world. Initiation also requires witnessing by the community - Mayan villages would assemble to welcome back the initiates from their ordeal. I feel my work is helping people - by witnessing the clumsy, difficult process of someone else’s occult initiatory journeys, they can have a different perspective on their own life passages.
As for most people hating the psychedelic experience, didn’t you read about the recent John Hopkins study with psilocybin, redoing the “Good Friday” experiment with similar excellent results? Also in the 1950s psychedelics were considered “wonder drugs” that were astonishingly safe - it was only when the media demonized them that people’s inner setting changed and there began to be more freakouts. Having a guide or a shamanic ritual container is also very important and has become more well-known since the 1960s.
Yes there was a small conservation movement before the late 60s, but the merging of the counterculture and the environmental movement with the Whole Earth Catalog, etc., was connected with the psychedelic gestalt of the time. I believe there are several books on this - a new one that I want to read is about the relationship btw the 1960s counterculture and digital culture, especially through the figure of Stewart Brand.
It is not a matter of “jumping on the environmental bandwagon” - we are not going to survive as a species unless there is an ecological U-turn in consciousness and an accelerated development of sustainable practices. This has to take place during our lifetimes.
As I discuss carefully in Breaking Open the Head, psychedelics are tools and all tools can be misused. Even so, people who have “fun” psychedelic experiences are often left with a distinct memory of a profoundly different relationship to time, psychic potential, and the natural and supernatural realms.