Talk:Terence McKenna

Very funny

It's actually very funny. HairlessCat (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not ED. Silly memes distract from the article and are not appropriate. Too much snark makes the article look stupid. Please review the help pages before inserting useless content like this into articles. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're original summary was that it wasn't funny, which it is. Sad. HairlessCat (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not funny at all - and the pic was MUCH too big. Scream!! (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The only way you think it's not funny is if you don't understand the joke. HairlessCat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Explain it to me then. Scream!! (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If New Agers think 5G is bad and evil and cancerous, they should offer up 5 grams in alternative fashion. Dried, silent darkness. HairlessCat (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Explain further. Didn't he die before 5G? Scream!! (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

He lives on in the form of shroom jokes. HairlessCat (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not funny. End Of. Scream!! (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you just don't understand the joke. HairlessCat (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Bongolian (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't laugh. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not explain jokes. HairlessCat (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@LeftyGreenMario, Scream!!, and Bongolian It's only funny if you've read Terence McKenna's work. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Confusing

I find this current text confusing and contradictory:

“”McKenna's meetings with "entities from other dimensions" led him to believe in ideas like collective consciousness and consciousness being the fundamental substance of reality (idealism), unlike physicality being fundamental (materialism). This is not to suggest he supports non-materialist neuroscience since an idealist can accept neuroscience 100% while saying neuroscience is an idea, something that is perceived and not something that is. He has never described any dualist model of the brain that would violate parsimony.

Can you make this sound more coherent, @HairlessCat? I've read psychedelic literature in my distant past, and I frankly am not impressed by what I've seen by McKenna. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)