You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘theory’ category.
Graham Hancock’s website has recently published two articles discussing mushrooms in Christian art. One, by Tom Hatsis attacks the topic of mushrooms in Christian art by means of a review of Jerry Brown and Julie Brown’s The Psychedelic Gospels. The other, by Jerry Brown, is a defense of the topic of mushrooms in Christian art and of his and Julie Brown’s book.
Brown asked me to consult on some details of Hatsis’ claims about ancient and medieval art and history, and I am cited in his article. Hatsis’ discussion of “parasols of victory” (whatever they are) and “paradeisbaum” (misspelling of paradiesbaum) is a wall of factual errors, misinterpretations, and confused historical reasoning.
Hatsis brands himself “psychedelic historian,” but the mistakes in this article make that brand look especially superficial. He should be embarrassed by the mistakes and take it as a clue that he needs to spend more time with the material he claims to be an expert on, less time lecturing others about historical methodology.
Likewise surprising is that Hatsis focuses again on amanita, Allegro, and Plaincourault. Meanwhile, Some of us have been saying for years (that last link collects posts from 2016; search page on “Hatsis” and “Allegro”) that Hatsis’ presentation of the topic as only being about amanita, Allegro, and Plaincourault is overly-narrow. For our part, we have simply put amanita, Allegro, and Plaincourault to one side, in favor of psilocybe and turned up troves of mushrooms in art (see also the recent books by Gosso and Camilla in Brown’s article).
Hatsis’ and Brown’s articles together prove that Hatsis is irrelevant to the topic of mushrooms in Christian (and, it must be added, Hellenic) art. His promotion of himself as judge of others’ historical methodology is nothing but a cover for his own lack of experience and lack of imagination.
Hatsis has dug himself a deep hole. He has presented himself in multiple venues, social media, podcasts, and YouTube videos as a debunker of mushrooms in Christian art. “Debunker of Allegro” is a key part of the Tom Hatsis, Psychedelic Historian™ brand. Yet, when confronted, his argument collapses. He seems to know at some level that his position is weak, and so resorts to hyperbolic rhetoric about historical methodology and the threat posed by the topic of mushrooms in Christian art to the “psychedelic renaissance.”
Will Hatsis be trapped by his brand? Or will he retract? Brown’s article counters Hatsis’ at every turn and provides a broad vision of the field and its importance.
A note at the top of Hatsis’ article says that portions come from his forthcoming book, titled The Mushroom Heretic: In Search of the Psychedelic Christ. This book sounds like a very bad idea, and, unless the historical errors and overly-narrow conception of the field on display in his article are rooted out, liable to be a disaster and sower of confusion. But there’s still time for him to drop his facile debunking, broaden his understanding of the topic, and apply himself to the real work of answering the key question: to what extent mushrooms in Christianity?
If scholars want the field of historical psychedelic studies to “be taken seriously” they must stop artificially narrowing the topic and arguing over the same ill-formed, distorted conceptions of the topic. There is a wealth of exciting ideas to be considered and evidence to be found, examined, and questioned. The topic of mushrooms in Christianity (and Hellenism) has profound ramifications for our understanding of religion and history. Enough with these facile debunkers who seek only to promote themselves.
In this episode, Max and Cyber explain the core, phase 1 part of the ego death theory.
- Topics covered include:
- Mental modelling
- The egoic and transcendent mental worldmodels
- States of consciousness, ordinary and altered
- Stages of psychospiritual development
- Tight and loose cognitive association binding, dissociation
- Mental representations and their referents
- Metaperception, explicit representationalism
- Conceptions of person-hood
- Cybernetic homunculus, control agency
- Popular attitudes and misperceptions about ego death
- Cybernetic instability, control-death
- Fatedness and its transcendence
- The will to exist in Schopenhauer’s philosophy
- Postulating higher control, humble prayer
- Helpless dependence on higher control, Schleiermacher’s theology
- Struggling to control the future, panic-attack freakout
- Physical metabolism and thought-processes
Based on wrmspirit’s comment here, wondering why I’m opposed to the idea of suppression of psychedelics in pre-modernity. Some of the below can be found in my reply to her comment, but I’ve also expanded some below.
Most entheogen scholars treat the topic of suppression in pre-modernity as if the suppressors themselves were sober and wanted to suppress the altered state entirely. I think that this attitude transposes the rhetoric of modern Prohibition and War on Drugs into a pre-modern context.
The attitude shapes research, by shaping the sorts of questions the researcher allows themselves to ask. Many researchers automatically assume that some authority (usually the Roman Empire or the Catholic Church) was opposed to the altered state entirely and sought to suppress psychedelics.
The researchers who think this way treat their research as telling a story about suppression. Their story becomes one-sided. They do not think to look for evidence in the mainstream Roman Empire society or the mainstream Middle Ages or the mainstream Renaissance. Any evidence they find in those contexts automatically becomes a sign of an oppressed group or a fringe survival or a secretive elite.
As a matter of research assumptions I do not assume that there was suppression of drugs. I am interested in looking for evidence more broadly than most researchers.
I find that many entheogen scholars are committed to demonizing the mainstream of past societies. I think that they have internalized the rhetoric of modern Prohibition, War on Drugs, and the counter-culture, and project that idea onto the past, consciously or unconsciously. Because the entheogen scholars understand drugs to be counter-cultural today, they think that they were counter-cultural in the past.
I’m interested in the question: “what does it mean for drugs to be a part of mainstream culture?” I’m not interested in trying to find a drug counter-culture that just so happens to mirror 20th century counter-culture. Many entheogen scholars seems to be interested in finding a drug counter-culture in pre-modernity.
–
I wrote some questions to Egodeath Theory blog last month, starting to outline these topics as research questions:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/27/idea-development-page-3/#qfc
Copied from the above link, with some commentary from Egodeath Theory blog:
Additions from Cyb Nov 28 2020:
“Evidently there has been suppression in the Prohibitionist 20th century.
“What sort of suppression was there before Prohibitionist laws?
“That’s the question that Moderates should answer, instead of projecting back 20th century-style Prohibition onto earlier eras.”
_____
“Moderates start by assuming a negative: that mushrooms were not used commonly.
“They assume they were somewhat rare, or are self-contradictory on this point, and act as though they were completely suppressed somewhere by someone.
“Moderates assume that the knowledge was lost until c. Wasson in the 50s.”
/ end nov 28 additions
What profit in suppressing Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, and selling Literalist Ordinary-state Possibilism?
What is the motive for suppressing mushrooms and promoting literalist ordinary state possibilism?
Answer: $
eg Brown didn’t even bother to specify why it’s a total, worst-case problem (a problem that mitigates against the credibility of Wasson re: mushrooms in Christianity), that Wasson was Pope-buddy/banker.[joke: what’s the meaning of any mytheme; mytheme {m}?
Answer: rebirth in the ASC.
A shallow tautology answer, that fails to differentiate mythemes or ASC phenom/ experien/ observ.What’s 248 x 84.3?
Answer: a number. <– um, correct?]When did supposed entheogen suppression start, in Christianity?
If we argue against all the Moderates that want to assert some sort of priest suppression in antiquity (middle ages, renaissance), when did it start?
When did the Catholic eucharist stop normally being psychedelic?
Answer: According to Pagels, during Valentinus’ time, Valentinians/ Gnostics/ esoterics / higher Christians used [mushroid] sacrament of apolytrosis (“after-redemption”, “after-release” – pls apply Greek + the Egodeath theory to explain meaning of “apolytrosis” ), while at the same time, lower Christians / “orthodox” / exoteric Christians, used the inert Mass.
In the same, oil & water congregation.Prot stopped shrooming when?
When did the various Protestant churches stop offering a psychedelic eucharist?
I’m thinking it was certain factions/ circles eg groups of monastic monks who taught each other how to use it; how accomodate their mind to harmless seizure & mental model transformation, how to interpret myth — the Lesser Mysteries book-learning preparatin training and exams you have to pass before real deal firsthand.
_______
“Your idea development is tending towards the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as the key battle ground.”
w/ Chron’y Revisionism, there’s an interesting foreshortening: everything before the printing press appears at the same distance (Edwin Johnson argues); there’s no difference in tone/character of writing, between 1525 vs. 1200 vs 400 vs 100 A.D. According to Johnson. It all has the same undifferentiable character: Church Fathers, Luther, read like the same factions of monks wrote them all, he argues. Same battles, same writing style.
“I know antiquity the best,
“I know fairly well the middle ages and renaissance in Italy(or what the unrevised chronology conventionally understands those periods to be). They seem psychedelic to me, with not obvious suppression of psychedelics.”
Chrono-Vertigo
“It is a major challenge to think in the Edwin Johnson chronology.
“It is mind blowing to think about, always has been since I encountered it via your work in the early 2000s.
“Makes me feel like the rug has been swept out from under me.
“The simple take away is to be agnostic about all historical narratives before the printing press (c. 1440, in conventional dating).”
___
From the main article:
http://egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm#_Toc177337612The adept use and comprehension of metaphor faded after the battle between politicized Christianity and Scientism around 1700, leaving a long-term standoff between mystically neutered religious literalism versus exclusively ordinary-state-based Science.
The culturally predominant type of religion in the modern era neutralized and reduced the traditional initiation system by a combination of non-transformative surface ritual and intellectual speculation based only in the ordinary cognitive state.
—
The modern cultural experience resulted from the predominance of the ordinary cognitive state.
The lack of culturally integrated altered-state initiation caused the egoic mental world-model, which is based in only a single cognitive state, to become completely predominant.
/ main article excerpt
—
“I had to catch myself while working a the post about Muraresku.
“I was going to write something that implied that The Egodeath Theory and the Maximal Entheogen Theory of Religion draws down the date for widespread drug use in Western religion to c. 1700, but that’s not right.
“I was thinking of the above part of the main article, but had misremembered its import (or perhaps never sorted it out very clearly).
“The statement is not about psychedelic use, but about metaphor.”
—
“I’m interested in the topic of literalist interpretation’s rise to dominance in the modern era.“Public and scholarly discourse about religion is hampered by it. Modern books are constrained by their failure to comprehend religious metaphor.
“I want to read more about the c. 1700s period, and now also the Reformation/Counter-Reformation that directly preceded it.”
—
“Hanegraaf’s Rejected Knowledge book fits in with the above, since he relates the rejection of esotericism with the Rationalist, Science-first, Enlightenment.“The Moderate position is that mushrooms, even if used somewhere at some time, were definitely suppressed, so much that mainstream culture forgot about them until the 60s.”
—
“When does the Maximal Theory ‘end’, chronologically speaking?“Per the Maximal Theory are we to say that mushrooms have always been used in religion?
“Is it tied to the fading of ‘adept use and comprehension of metaphor’ per the above in mainstream culture?”
—
“When did Christian churches switch from authentic initiation to ‘non-transformative surface ritual’?”
I contributed some suggestions and questions to these two of Michael Hoffman’s recent articles:
Defining “Compelling Evidence” & “Criteria of Proof” for Mushrooms in Christian Art https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-greek-bible-mushrooms/
Proof that the Canterbury Psalter’s Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Is Psilocybe https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/proof-that-the-canterbury-psalters-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-is-psilocybe/
See also the Realtime Discovery Log https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/realtime-discovery-log/
and
Theory of Mythemes https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/theory-of-mythemes/
and
Scientific Reproducibility of Mytheme Decoding https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/scientific-reproducibility-of-mytheme-decoding/
–
A distinctively great part of Michael’s breakthroughs and idea development and confirmation is how he documents the stages of discovery, not merely the result. You can follow along his thought process and see how he breaks through into new interpretations, and tests and confirms them. This models for you how to apply the paradigm and thinking style of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, how to tune in to this frequency.
Watching this was always one of the best parts of following the old Egodeath Yahoo Group.
Yahoo has announced that they will shut down their groups in December. Yahoo has not hosted messages anyway since last year.
I’ve deleted the link in the sidebar to the Egodeath Theory Yahoo group. In its place I have added the Egodeath Theory blog at WordPress.
Michael wrote that I bring the Classics department perspective in the invisible college of transcendent knowledge. What does that consist of?
My background in official academia:
My training is primarily in the field of Classics, the study of the ancient Greek and Latin languages and literature written in those languages. This primarily involves study of the technical grammar and syntax of the languages, of the figures of speech and rhetorical structures typically employed, of the plots of major works, and of the implied viewpoint and assumptions of an author. In its most basic form this consists of a close reading of the Greek or Latin in order to better explain what a text means. Classical authors typically wrote in a dense and layered way, even without taking into account encoding of altered state cybernetics
For the majority of contemporary Classicists, the literature to be studied primarily consists of ancient Greek literature from c. 800 BC to c. 300 BC and Latin literature from c. 200 BC to c. 200 AD. I take a wider view of this field than most and include anything written in those languages, including works of Late Antiquity, Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, however we should define or understand those periods. Even within official academia I am something of an outsider in this way. A better name for the field may be ‘Classical Languages and Literature’, to de-emphasize ‘pagan’ antiquity in favor of a more natural and balanced focus on the full history of the languages and literature. Contemporary classicists unduly limit themselves in general to non-Christian texts, creating an artificial divide in the ‘western tradition’ that negatively affects both the study of Classical texts, which are assumed to be wholly different from Christian texts, and the study of Christian texts, which are not subjected to close reading and linguistic and literary analysis as works of Greek and Latin literature as often as Classical texts. For many, studying the Classics has become either a refuge from bunk Christianity, similar to the turn to Eastern religions, or a way of avoiding the critical study of Christianity and preserving the just-so story of early Christian history and texts.
I have also intentionally sought out advanced training in the related disciplines of ancient history and archaeology/art history. This is relatively unusual among academics of my generation, who are usually encouraged to hyper-specialize by the demands of graduate training and the academic job market, and by the tendency observable in the 20th-21st centuries of academic fields to wander away from each other into increasingly specialized subfields. I saw these pressures early on and resisted them, wanting to cultivate a fuller picture of the ancient world than the study of language and literature could afford. Although based in the study of language and literature, I embraced the study of history and archaeology/art history.
I remain, however, highly skeptical of these fields, as I am of my own. Besides not recognizing the role of psychedelics, they remain tied to the overly naive literalism of 19th century scholars who founded the modern fields. Contemporary scholars in those fields have not overthrown that literalism to the degree needed, especially to the general public. The fields, as presented to the general public, undergraduate students, and even many graduate students, rely on a degree of certainty about reconstructions of the past that is unfounded and misguided.
Ancient history: the majority of modern narrative histories of antiquity largely follow works of history written by ancient Greeks and Romans themselves. They tend to use those ancient works as the basis for their chronology and history-telling, with some additions or corrections based on non-literary sources. This however continues to ignore work done since the 1970s detailing how the works written by ancient historians were not founded on the principle typical of the modern discipline of history that the past be recorded and depicted as accurately as possible with as much objectivity as possible. Instead ancient history writing was a branch of literature, one that had some relationship with the concept of an accurate representation of the past, but certainly not in the same was as moderns would like. It has been shown again and again that history writers in antiquity were willing to distort events for a wide variety of reasons, from advancing specific political positions, to creating arresting emotional effects, to crafting an account that corresponded with poetic motifs. Moreover, as I have been showing in my ongoing translations from the first history writer, Herodotus, episodes presented as history regularly reflect altered state cybernetics, and so we have to wonder to what extent the representation of events has been modified to conform to altered state cybernetics or whether certain episodes are privileged because they conform to the typical trajectory of altered state experiencing. Modern narrative histories that rely on ancient histories should acknowledge and reflect those dynamics. As it is, they flatten out those dynamics, literalizing them, flattening the inspired air out of them, reducing them to a simple narrative.
Archaeology has a similar problem. Archaeologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries regularly relied upon ancient texts as straightforward descriptions of sites and topography. The authority given to the texts regularly shaped the identification and interpretation of sites and parts of sites. Even though working archaeologists have questioned the authority of texts, some abandoning them off completely, the identifications and interpretations made by their predecessors have often been taken over by guide books, informational signage aimed at tourists, and academics outside of the field, who are unaware of challenges to the initial work or unable to enter into the debate. The presentation of sites to the public is affected issues of local and national identity that are often obscured. A problem for the classical era, it is even more so for early Christian sites, where mythology is repeated as historical fact time and time again. My graduate training in archaeology has resulted in a deep skepticism regarding the way sites are presented. To a certain extent this is out of the hands of practicing archaeologists, and I know many who call for revisions to the identification and chronology of sites, based on more reliable dating techniques than suspect literary texts.
John Bartram is one such scholar, who calls for a revised chronology and identification of ‘early Christian’ sites and texts based not on the received chronology, but on more reliable dating techniques (more of relevance throughout his site).
Classics itself, as the study of classical literature, is not free of these problems of received assumptions in chronology and identification. The field is inconsistent in its assumptions of authorship and authenticity of texts. The 19th century was characterized by a great deal of skepticism regarding the unity, authorship, and authenticity of classical texts. A good deal of that skepticism was rejected primarily because literary scholars wanted whole texts by single authors to analyze. Moreover, the field relies upon unverifiable assumptions regarding the transmission of texts from antiquity to the earliest currently extant edition, which may date to centuries after the believed date of composition.
All my studies in official academia have shown me that we have far less certainty regarding our historical reconstructions of the ancient world than is normally presented. When researching I favor alternating between two approaches – a wild, throw anything against the wall approach to see what sticks and a careful questioning of assumptions and of importations of material from outside the immediate topic under consideration.
Altered state cybernetics are inherent to the human mind, even if expressed and in a certain way experienced differently by different cultures. To truly unlock ancient thinking and writing, learn to recognize those dynamics and metaphors for them.
There is an analogy between my reservations concerning received historical reconstructions of the ancient world and the uncertainty and detachment concerning the reality of the external world, the splitting of representation and represented referent, in the loose state of cognition. This skepticism and reservation is not an abandoning of all possibility of knowledge about the past, as recommended by some post-modernist thinkers, but rather a detachment and flexibility regarding our reconstructions and assumptions. Researchers must be more open than they have been to questioning wide swaths of assumptions at once, not simply manipulating individual pieces of evidence at a time.
Michael writes (7/9/16):
In the University of Transcendent Knowledge,
Cybermonk brings the STEM department perspective.
Max Freakout brings the Philosophy department perspective.
Psyber Disciple brings the Classics department perspective.
A fitting twist on Cyber. Wordplay made possible by English pronunciation CYber- of ancient Greek κυβερν- (upper case: ΚΥΒΕΡΝ). psyche and kubernetes. the mind/soul is most properly/fruitfully conceived as a helmsman. The cybernetic aspect of the mind is revealed by psychedelics. psyber/cyber.
κυβερνήσεως disciplina = knowledge of steering (mixing languages to show both the Greek and Roman tradition)
Liddell, Scott, Jones Dictionary entries for ancient Greek words using κυβερν- root, meanings in bold [my added translations in bold brackets]:
κῠβερν-άω,
steer, νῆα κυβερνῆσαι Od.3.283, cf. Pi.O.12.3 (Pass.), Pl.Plt.298e, etc.: abs., act as helmsman, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ Ar.Eq.544.
drive, κ. ἅρματα Pl.Thg.123c; τὸν δρόμον τῶν Ἵππων Hdn.7.9.6.
metaph., guide, govern, Pi.P.5.122, Antipho 1.13, Pl.Euthd.291d, etc.; τὴν δίκην ὀρθῇ γνώμῃ κυβερνᾶτε Herod.2.100.
act as pilot, i.e. perform certain rites, in the Ship of Isis, IGRom.1.817 (Callipolis).
Med., = Act., κυβερνωμένης τῆς διανοίας Arist.Pr.964b17; ὁ κυβερνώμενος μουσικῇ Marcellin.Vit. Thuc.49:—Pass., σῇ κυβερνῶμαι χερί S.Aj.35; μιᾷ γνώμῃ τῇ Κύρου ἐκυβερνᾶτο X.Cyr.8.8.1; ἡ ἰατρικὴ . . διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου κυβερνᾶται Pl.Smp.187a, cf. R.590d, Antiph.40.8, etc.; cf. κυμερῆναι.
κῠβερν-ήσια (sc. ἱερἄ, ων, τά,
festival at Athens in memory of the steersman of Theseus, Plu.Thes.17.
κῠβέρν-ησις, Dor. κῠβέρν-ᾱσις, εως, ἡ,
steering, pilotage, Pl.R.488b.
metaph., government, πολίων of cities, Pi.P.10.72 (pl.), cf. 1 Ep.Cor.12.28 (pl.); θεοῦ by a god, Plu.2.162a.
κῠβερν-ήτειρα, ἡ, fem. of
κυβερνητήρ, τύχη AP10.65 (Pall.), cf. Nonn.D.1.89.
κῠβερν-ητήρ, Dor. κῠβερν-ᾱτήρ, ῆρος, ὁ,
= κυβερνήτης, Od.8.557, etc.: metaph., Pi.P.4.274: as Adj., κ. χαλινός Opp.C.1.96.
κῠβερν-ήτης (Aeol. κυμερνήτης, q.v.), ου, ὁ,
steersman, pilot, Il.19.43, Od.9.78, A.Supp. 770, Hdt.2.164, Ar.Th.837, Th.7.70, Pl.R.341c, etc.; skipper of Nileboat, ναύκληρος καὶ κ. PHib.1.39.6 (iii B.C.), cf. PGiss.11 (ii A.D.), etc.
metaph., guide, governor, E.Supp.880, Pl.Phdr.247c; as an official title, PMasp.89 iii 1 (vi A.D.).
κῠβερν-ητικός, ή, όν,
good at steering, Pl.R.488d, 488e; νοῦς καὶ ἀρετὴ κ. Id.Alc.1.135a: Comp. -ώτερος Id.R.551c: Sup. -ώτατος X.Mem.3.3.9: ἡ -κή (sc. τέχνη) pilot’s art, Pl.Grg.511d, cf. lamb.Myst.3.26; τὸ -κόν Pl.Plt.299 c; τὰ -κά Id.Alc.1.119d. Adv. -κῶς D.Chr.4.25.
metaph., ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων -κή Pl.Clit.408b, etc.
κῠβερν-ῆτις, ιδος, fem. of κυβερνήτης, epith. of Isis, POxy.1380.69 (ii A.D.).
–
Lewis & Short dictionary entries for Latin words etymologically related to disciple:
discentĭa, ae, f. [disco],
I. a learning (late Lat.), Tert. Anim. 23 and 24.
discīplīna (also uncontr. DISCIPVLINA, Num. Hadr. ap. Eckh. D. N. V. 6, p. 503; the Cod. palimps. Cic. Rep. 2, 19, prima manu has likewise DISCIPVLINA: so,
I. discipulina, Plaut. Most. 1, 2, 75 Lorenz; id. As. 1, 3, 49 Fleck.; cf. Ussing ad loc.), ae. f. [discipulus], instruction, tuition, teaching in the widest sense of the word (for syn. cf.: ars, litterae, doctrina, scientia, cognitio, numanitas—very freq. and good prose).
I. Lit. : ad aliquem disciplinae causa concurrere (for which, shortly after: illo discendi causa proficisci), Caes. B. G. 6, 13, 4; cf. ib. 6, 14, 2 and 3: alicui in disciplinam tradi, Cic. Div. 1, 41, 92; cf. id. Verr. 2, 1, 45; id. Phil. 2, 2: eadem in litteris ratio est reliquisque rebus, quarum est disciplina,are the objects of instruction id. Div. 2, 3, 10: puerilis, id. Rep. 4, 3; 4; cf.: pueritiae disciplinae, id. de Imp. Pomp. 10, 28: praestantior, id. Fam. 1, 7 fin. et saep.
II. Meton. (causa pro effectu), all that is taught in the way of instruction, whether with reference to single circumstances of life, or to science, art, morals, politics, etc., learning, knowledge, science, discipline .
A. Object.: caveto alienam disciplinam temere contemnas, Cato R. R. 1, 4: qui haec (sc. justitia, fides, aequitas, etc.) disciplinis informata, alia moribus confirmarunt, sanxerunt autem alia legibus, Cic. Rep. 1, 2: totius familiae praecepta et instituta et disciplina, id. Verr. 2, 3, 68: a pueris nullo officio aut disciplina assuefacti nihil omnino contra voluntatem faciant, Caes. B. G. 4, 1, 9; id. B. C. 3, 10, 4 et saep.: cujus prima aetas dedita disciplinis fuit iisque artibus, quibus instruimur ad hunc usum forensem, Cic. Cael. 30, 72: juris civilis, id. de Or. 1, 39, 18; cf. id. Mur. 10 fin. : dicendi, id. Brut. 44, 163: musices,music Quint. 1, 10, 15: omnis honesti justique, id. 12, 2, 1: ruris,agriculture Col. 1, 1, 6; cf. id. prooem. § 23 et saep.: militiae,art of war, tactics Cic. de Imp. Pomp. 10, 28; cf. bellica, id. N. D. 2, 64, 161: militaris, Nep. Iphicr. 1 and 2; esp. military discipline, Liv. 8, 7 fin. ; 8, 32; 34; 35; Tac. G. 25; Suet. Caes. 24 et saep.; cf. also: docuit, quid populi Romani disciplina atque opes possent, Caes. B. G. 6, 1 fin. ; and with usus, id. ib. 1, 40, 5: domestica,domestic discipline Suet. Caes. 48; cf. domus, id. Aug. 65 et saep.: rei publicae,science of government, statesmanship Cic. de Or. 1, 34, 159; cf. id. Rep. 1, 33; 2, 38 fin. ; 3, 3 al.: disciplina philosophiae,philosophical doctrines, philosophical system Cic. Ac. 2, 3; cf. id. Fin. 1, 4 fin. ; id. N. D. 1, 7; 5, 32, 90; id. Brut. 25; id. Off. 3, 4, 20 et saep.—
B. Subject., a custom, habit : eademne erat haec disciplina tibi, quum tu adolescens eras? Plaut. Bacch. 3, 3, 17: eādem nos disciplinā utimur, id. As. 1, 3, 49; cf. Ter. Heaut. 2, 3, 59 Ruhnk.: imitatur malarum malam disciplinam, Plaut. Cas. 3, 5, 28; cf.: imitari, Castor, potius avi mores disciplinamque debebas, Cic. Deiot. 10; cf. also, id. Verr 2, 3, 68; Plaut. Merc. 1, 1, 6; id. Truc. 1, 1, 30.
discīplīnābĭlis, e, adj. [disciplina],
I. to be learned by teaching, Cassiod. Var. 4, 33; Isid. 2, 24, 9.—Hence, adv.: discī^plīnā-bĭlĭter, in an instructive manner, Cassiod. in Psalt. praef. 4; id. in Psa. 150, 4.
discīplīnātus, a, um, adj. [id.],
I. instructed, disciplined (late Lat.), Vulg. Jacob. 3, 13 al.; Alcim. Avit. 4, 46: disciplinatior, Tert. Fug. in persec. 1, fin.
discīplīnōsus, a, um, adj. [id.],
I. docile : gladiator, Cato ap. Non. 463, 5; cf. Gell. 4, 9, 12.
discĭpŭlātus, ūs, m. [discipulus],
I. the condition of a disciple, discipleship, Tert. Praescr. Haeret. 22; Cassiod. Var. 5, 40.
discĭpŭlus, i, m. disco, and root of puer, pupilla; cf. Sanscr., putras, son; Gr. πωλος; Engl., foal,
I. a learner, scholar, pupil, disciple .
I. In gen., Plaut. Bacch. 1, 2, 44 sq.; Cic. Div. 1, 3, 6; 1, 23, 46; id. N. D. 3, 7 et saep.— Trop. Prov.: discipulus est prioris posterior dies, Pub. Syr. 120 (Rib).—In the fem. : discĭpŭla, ae, a female scholar or disciple : ego te dedam discipulam cruci, Plaut. Aul. 1, 1, 20; Plin. 35, 11, 40, § 147; Hor. S. 1, 10, 91; Vulg. Act. 9, 36 al.—Cf. transf., of the nightingale, Plin. 10, 29, 43, § 83.—Of Latin eloquence: Latina facundia similis Graecae ac prorsus ejus discipula videtur, Quint. 12, 10, 27.— —
II. A learner in an art or trade, an apprentice, Plaut. Aul. 3, 1, 4; id. Ps. 3, 2, 76; 96; Paul. Sent. 2, 8, 3.—
III. (Eccl. Lat.) A disciple of Christ, Vulg. Luc. 5, 30 et saep.
disco, dĭdĭci, 3 (
I. part. fut. : sic disciturum, etc., App. ap. Prisc. p. 887 P.), v. a. from the root da-, Gr. δεδαωσδαηναι; dak-, cf. doceo, doctus, Gr. διδασκω, to learn, to learn to know, to become acquainted with, etc. (for syn. cf.: capio, percipio, concipio, comprehendo, intellego, cognosco, nosco, agnosco, animadverto, calleo, scio—very freq. in all periods and sorts of writing).
(a). With acc. : litteras Graecas senex didici, Cic. de Sen. 8, 26; id. Tusc. 1, 13, 29: so, litteras, Plaut. Truc. 4, 2, 22: jus civile, id. Mur. 9, 19; 10, 23: litteras apud aliquem, Cic. Fam. 9, 10, 2: dialectica ab aliquo, id. Ac. 2, 30, 98: artem ab aliquo, Quint. 3, 1, 10 et saep.: aliquid de aliquo, Ter. Eun. 2, 2, 31: virtutem ex me, fortunam ex aliis, Verg. A. 12, 435; cf. Quint. 12, 8, 6 al.: fabularum similia, Cic. Rep. 1, 36: artes, id. ib. 2, 21: palaestram, Quint. 5, 10, 121: affectum, id. 1, 11, 2: inde vocabula prima, Lucr. 5, 1042: elementa prima, Hor. S. 1, 1, 26: dulces querelas, Lucr. 5, 1384; cf. preces, Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 133 et saep.: me peritus Discet Iber, Hor. C. 2, 20, 20; cf.: quem (Augustum) didicere Vindelici, id. ib. 4, 14, 8: omnes crimine ab uno, Verg. A. 2, 66 et saep.— Pass. : dum est, unde jus civile discatur, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 45; cf. jus, Quint. 12, 3, 9: Crassus, quod disci potuit de jure didicit, Cic. de Or. 2, 33, 143: tot artibus discendis, Quint. 12, 11, 9 et saep.—
(b). With inf. or acc. and inf. : pueri qui nare discunt, Plaut. Aul. 4, 1, 9: rapere et clepere, Cic. Rep. 4, 5 (ap. Non. 20, 15): Latine loqui, Sall. J. 101, 6: nobis ignoscere, Quint. 11, 2, 45: assem in partes diducere, Hor. A. P. 326: bene ferre magnam fortunam, id. C. 3, 27, 75 et saep.: bene ubi quod consilium discimus accidisse, etc., Plaut. Ps. 2, 3, 15: discit, Litavicum ad sollicitandos Haeduos profectum, Caes. B. G. 7, 54: animadverti et didici ex tuis litteris te omnibus in rebus habuisse rationem, ut, etc., Cic. Fam. 3, 5; id. Ac. 2, 30 fin. : deos didici securum agere aevum, Hor. S. 1, 5, 101 et saep.—
(g). With relat. clause : plures discent, quemadmodum haec fiant, quam quemadmodum his resistatur, Cic. Lael. 12, 41: quantum in Etruria belli esset, Liv. 10, 25: patriae quid debeat, etc., Hor. A. P. 312 et saep.—
(d). Absol. : disces tu quidem a principe hujus aetatis philosophorum, et disces quamdiu voles, Cic. Off. 1, 1, 2: didicit,oratory id. Brut. 71, 249; Caes. B. G. 6, 14, 4; Quint. 1, 12, 14 al.: discendi aut visendi causa maria transmittere, Cic. Rep. 1, 3; so, discendi causa, id. ib. 1, 10; id. Off. 2, 1, 4; Caes. B. G. 6, 13 fin. al.: se ita a patribus majoribusque suis didicisse, ut, etc., Caes. B. G. 1, 13, 6. —Ellipt.: discebant fidibus antiqui, sc. canere, Cic. de Sen. 8 fin. (cf.: docere fidibus, Cic. Fam. 9, 22, 3: scire fidibus, Ter. Eun. 1, 5, 53).—
b. Transf., of inanimate subjects: manus, Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 159: nec varios discet mentiri lana colores, Verg. E. 4, 42: arbores, Plin. H. N. 16 prooem.—
c. To teach = docere (late Lat., cf. μανανειν, and Eng. learn): falsa discentes, Amm. 14, 1.
–
Lewis & Short dictionary entries for Latin words etymologically related to Greek κυβερν- root
gŭbernābĭlis, e, adj. [guberno],
I. susceptible of being governed, controllable : sive anima est mundus sive corpus natura gubernabile, Sen. Q. N. 3, 29, 2.
gŭbernācŭlum (poet. contr. gŭ-bernāclum, Lucr. 4, 904; Verg. A. 5, 176; 859; 6, 349 al.), i, n. [guberno],
I. a helm, rudder (cf. clavus).
I. Lit. : hominis, non sapientis inventa sunt navigia, additis a tergo gubernaculis, quae huc atque illuc cursum navigii torqueant: exemplum a piscibus tractum, qui cauda reguntur, etc., Sen. Ep. 90; cf.: piscium meatus gubernaculi modo regunt (caudae), Plin. 11, 50, 111, § 264: ut cruribus velut gubernaculis demissis cursum dirigeret, Front. 3, 13, 6: hic ille naufragus ad gubernaculum accessit, et navi, quoad potuit, est opitulatus, Cic. Inv. 2, 51, 154: ipse gubernaclo rector subit, ipse magister, Verg. A. 5, 176.—
II. Transf., guidance, direction; esp. of the state, government (usually in plur.): clavum tanti imperii tenere et gubernacula rei publicae tractare, Cic. Sest. 9, 20; cf.: qui ad gubernacula rei publicae sedere debebant, id. Rosc. Am. 18, 51: repelli a gubernaculis civitatum, id. de Or. 1, 11, 46: recedere a gubernaculis, id. Fam. 16, 27, 1: ad gubernacula rei publicae accedere, Liv. 4, 3, 17: quis ad gubernacula sedeat summa cura providendum, id. 24, 8, 13: abicere gubernacula imperii, Val. Max. 7, 6, 1: transferre ad aliquem fortunarum suarum gubernacula, Nazar. Pan. Const. 27, 2: temperare gubernacula vitae, Plin. 11, 37, 88, § 219.—In sing.: (rare) exercitus non habilis gubernaculo, Vell. 2, 113, 2: gubernaculum rei publicae tenere, Lact. 1, 1, 14.
gŭbernātĭo, ōnis, f. [guberno],
I. a steering, piloting of a ship (Ciceron.).
I. Lit. : si in ipsa gubernatione negligentia est navis eversa, Cic. Fin. 4, 27, 76; cf. id. ib. 3, 7, 24. —
II. Transf., in gen., direction, management, government : summi imperii gubernatione districtus, Cic. de Or. 3, 32, 131: civitatis, id. Rep. 1, 2: tantarum rerum, id. Cat. 3, 8, 18: consilii, id. Inv. 2, 54, 164: summi consilii, id. Vat. 15, 36.
gŭbernātor, ōris, m. [id.],
I. a steersman, pilot (cf.: magister, navarchus, nauclerus, navicularius).
I. Lit. : si tu proreta isti navi’s, ego gubernator ero, Plaut. Rud. 4, 3, 75; id. Am. 3, 2, 69: gubernator clavum tenens sedet in puppi quietus, Cic. de Sen. 6, 17; id. Phil. 7, 9, 27; id. Ac. 2, 31, 100; id. de Inv. 1, 34, 58; id. Rep. 1, 40; 5, 3; Quint. 2, 17, 24; 34; 4, 1, 61; Verg. A. 3, 269; 5, 12; 6, 337 et saep.—Prov.: tranquillo quilibet gubernator est, Sen. Ep. 85 med. —
II. Transf., a director, ruler, governor : cum in rebus animalibus aliud pro alio ponitur; ut de agitatore (Ennius): Gubernator magna contorsit equum vi, Quint. 8, 6, 9; the same, Enn. ap. Charis. p. 244 P. and ap. Diom. p. 451 ib. (Ann. v. 160 Vahl.): poli,God Sen. Hippol. 903: custodes gubernatoresque rei publicae, Cic. Rab. Perd. 9, 26; cf.: quasi tutor et procurator rei publicae: sic enim appelletur, quicumque erit rector et gubernator civitatis, id. Rep. 2, 29.
gŭbernātrix, īcis, f. [gubernator, II.],
I. a conductress, directress : an fortunam collaudem, quae gubernatrix fuit? Ter. Eun. 5, 9, 16: ista praeclara gubernatrice civitatum eloquentia rem publicam dissipaverunt, Cic. de Or. 1, 9, 38.
gŭbernĭus, ii, m. [guberno],
I. a steersman, pilot, for the usual gubernator, Laber. ap. Gell. 16, 7, 10.—Another form: ‡ gŭ-bernĭo, ōnis, m., acc. to Isid. Orig. 19, 1, 4.
gŭberno, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a., = κυβερνω,
I. to steer or pilot a ship (class.).
I. Lit. : dum clavum rectum teneant navemque gubernent, Enn. ap. Isid. Orig. 19, 2 (Ann. v. 472 Vahl.): ut si nautae certarent, quis eorum potissimum gubernaret, Cic. Off. 1, 25, 87: tranquillo mari gubernare, id. Rep. 1, 6.—Prov.: gubernare e terra,to guide those who are in peril while keeping in safety one’s self Liv. 44, 22, 14: quilibet nautarum tranquillo mari gubernare potest, id. 24, 8, 12; cf. gubernator, I. fin. —
II. Transf., in gen., to direct, manage, conduct, govern, guide (a favorite word with Cic.; cf.: moderor, rego): qui eos gubernat animus infirmum gerunt, Ter. Hec. 3, 1, 31: quid miramur L. Sullam, cum solus rem publicam regeret orbemque terrarum gubernaret? etc., Cic. Rosc. Am. 45, 131; cf.: melius gubernari et regi civitates, id. Rep. 2, 9: rem publicam, id. ib. 1, 34; 3, 35; cf. also: in gubernanda re publica, id. ib. 1, 29: teque hortor, ut omnia gubernes ac moderere prudentia tua, id. Fam. 2, 7, 1; cf.: illa tormenta gubernat dolor, id. Sull. 28, 78: totam petitionem, id. Mil. 9, 25: velim ergo totum hoc ita gubernes, ut, etc., id. Att. 13, 25, 2: sed haec fortuna viderit, quoniam ratio non gubernat, id. ib. 14, 11, 1; cf.: sed haec deus aliquis gubernabit, id. ib. 6, 3, 3: fortunae motum, id. ib. 8, 4, 1: iter meum rei publicae et rerum urbanarum ratio gubernabit, id. Fam. 2, 17, 1: vitam, id. Fin. 2, 13, 43: fortunam suam, Vell. 2, 127, 1: Massyleum virga gubernet equum, Mart. 9, 23, 14.— Absol. : jam ex sermone hoc gubernabunt doctius porro, will steer, i. e. behave, Plaut. Mil. 4, 2, 99; cf. gubernator, II.
gŭbernum, i, n. [guberno],
I. a helm, rudder (ante-class. for the class. gubernaculum): proras despoliate et detondete guberna, Lucil. ap. Non. 490, 32; Lucr. 2, 553; 4, 439.
An unexpected, unlooked for side-effect of studying the Ego Death Theory has been that Max Freakout and I have both become adept at deconstructing the style-based pretenses of competing theories and approaches. I don’t guarantee that everyone will experience this, but it may be a hallmark of thinking within the Ego Death Theory paradigm.
I have noticed in our podcast recordings that we easily identify cultural assumptions and poses and their impact upon theories and approaches to psychedelics. Examples: Martin Ball’s New Age self-help theater, Robin Carhart-Harris’ trendy scientist social media branding, Tom Hatsis’ academic-styled playground bullying.
The Ego Death theory asks you to take on no cultural pose or identity, except for, as a side-effect, the pose of critic of cultural poses and identities. Such a pose is not centrally relevant to understanding the concepts of self-control limitation and eternalism, but it is a part of adopting a revolutionary new and independent paradigm. It is linked also to a fluid mastery of metaphor and semantics, which the Ego Death theory enables.
I must acknowledge, too, my debt to my academic studies. It is typical of literary studies to critique the cultural poses of a text and author.
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyrqfBbc8Mc&feature=youtu.be
Complementing the first podcast, in this second one Max and I discuss his history with the Egodeath Theory.
Covers youthful exploration of psychoactive drugs, drug-induced control loss, developing interest in philosophy and theorizing, Psychonautica podcast and interview with Michael Hoffman, posting in online forums, relationship to pop psychedelia, obstructions to mainstream academic career in philosophy/religious studies, experience of learning the Egodeath theory Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Coming episodes include initial definition of prominent models of thinking in contemporary discussion of psychoactives and analysis of Martin Ball’s Entheological Paradigm.
Max Freakout invited me to join him in creating a podcast. The first episode, as a videolog, is now available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHQj_KUr7Eg
In this first episode we discuss my history with the egodeath theory.
In coming episodes Max will tell his story, and we will discuss our motivations for collaborating in the podcast format, define common sets of assumptions present in contemporary discourse about psychedelics, and begin to present and critique those assumptions from the standpoint of the egodeath theory.
cyberdisciple 
Recent Comments