Comparison between Terence Mckenna and Tim Leary
Tension between metaphorical and literal interpretation of Mckenna’s ideas
Mckenna’s ‘Stoned Ape’ theory of human evolution
Brian Aker’s Lamarckist criticism of stoned ape theory
Differing views of Mckenna’s motivations
Mckenna’s criticism of scientism
Mckenna’s emphasis on natural drugs and dismissal of LSD
Mckenna’s feminist ideals
Mckenna’s analogical model of psychedelic cognition (explicit representationalism)
Mckenna’s model of time and reverse-causality and its relation to 4D block-universe determinism
Mckenna’s ‘timewave zero’ equation
2012 as teleological eschaton
Mckenna’s idea of accelerating ingression into novelty
Scientistic reliance on inductivist logic
Mckenna’s DMT induced ‘Machine Elves’, comparisons with religious myths such as prophet Jacob’s wrestling with an angel
Mckenna’s concept of telepathic communication
Mckenna’s rejection of psychedelic Christianity via dismissal of John Allegro and Leary’s Good Friday experiment


Pharmaceutical companies, police, prison guards, and alcohol industry are terrified because they stand to lose big when Prohibition falls. They are funding pro-Prohibition groups.

A podcast listener sent me this article from the New Yorker magazine on Ayahuasca in the U.S. :

Spot the pop sike cliches! McKenna brothers; brain scanning; nonduality; psychedelics can imitate meditation; psychedelics for trauma healing; Western tourism of another culture.

For affluent urban Westerners, ayahuasca / south american jungle culture is the new ‘eastern religions’. It’s trendy. We could have covered Martin Ball from this angle. It’s fitting that the trip scene described happens in a yoga studio.

The article is almost a check-list of our podcast topics.

Article mentions the ayahuasca churches yet there is no mention that these are explicitly *Christian* churches. Instead profiles neo-shamanism of south american variety.

Separate mysticism from culture. Authentic religion not dependent on cultural forms / ritual actions. Ingest psychedelics to learn about metaphor and eternalism. Learn eternalism and metaphorical expression of switch from possibilism to eternalism and you can recognize it everywhere.

Rituals are usually tied to specific cultural traditions and reinforce those traditions through repetition. This often involves reinforcing specific societal arrangements, including hierarchies of power in economic, gender, racial, and other aspects of society. Rituals could be channeled to reinforce group opposition to political/social domination, promoting egalitarianism against elite control, as in the radical democracy of ancient Athens (although such radical action was restricted to male citizens of Athenian descent; women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded) or in early house church Christianity as counter Roman empire movement (although co-opted by proto-Catholic leaders).
From the one who sent me the article: a reaction to the rhetorical and authorial self-presentation of the article. Stance is that of sophisticated cultural critic and taste-maker. The closing narration of the article reinforces self-control power of author and moralizing authority.

Okay. We’re going to run a major-ish article on ayahuasca. A shallow smattering of everything; a quick panoramic view. We’ll talk about it ‘scientifically,’ from the standpoint of the mainstream medical community. We’ll talk about with reference to contemporary North American culture, as a growing fad. We’ll talk about it historically, both in terms of original context and of the shifts/developments away from that context. We’ll be, like, super objective, examining the views of proponents from different sectors, walks of life, and with differing goals/visions for this stuff. We’ll talk about the supposed best of its properties from these different perspectives. We’ll also talk about the worst, about the risks, trying to involve various kinds of voices and types of information from that standpoint as well.

But then—get this—at the end, it’s *also* going to turn into a hybrid David Sedaris/Elizabeth Gilbert short story with an added feel-good, moralizing twist.

The moment we’ve all been waiting for. Is it really true? Suspense builds. The writer of this article is going to try this stuff for the first time and let us know what’s *actually* up with it. Those who haven’t tried or heard of ayahuasca but have been made curious by the article put themselves in her shoes; the “investigative journalist” the reader is most likely to trust and identify with tries so we don’t have to.

(The implication perhaps being that none of the other circulating voices, including those cited and interviewed by her, can actually be trusted; she, New Yorker contributor and True ‘Cultured’ People’s cultural authority/ educated and savvy Metropolitan Pilgrim, is the one who has provided us with this information so far. She has also established her identity as ‘trained and professional channeler of objective data/perspectives.’ And, after all, who really knows who the other people talking about these things are? Probably sketchy, is what they are; probably not Like Me.)

The lesson that emerges, of course, is that: “The power isn’t really in the plant, it’s in me. Not only that, but in retrospect, I was WAY better off than all of those other miserable, vomiting people who were clearly having a variety of unpleasant experiences.” At best they are easy targets of caricature and patronization; at worst they are throwing their lives away and on the possible verge of permanent mental/physical damage.

Status quo remains unchallenged. Experience in many ways ultimately foo-food as a hyped-up let down. Threat (however exciting) of new way of seeing exchanged for (disappointing, though ultimately comforting) comic relief that keeps us grounded in the familiar.

Though, of course, the narrative might also be seen as a commentary on some of the more absurd parts of culturally re-appropriated ayahuasca rituals (the jungle-print pants, yoga mats, trick-or-treat buckets, etc.; made me think of some of Max’s commentary in episode 7). It’s-a-fad slant also indicated by title.

Article: Hatsis, T. 2016. “Born of a Version: Parthenogenesis and The Holy Mushroom.” Psychedelic Press 17:21-39.

Another Hatsis self-promotional hack job masquerading as academic scholarship. Shame on Psychedelic Press for promoting this regressive piece.

According to Hatsis, Christian mushroom theorists John Allegro, Clark Heinrich, John Rush, and Jan Irvin and Andrew Rutajit promote the idea that the story of the life of Jesus refers to the life cycle of a mushroom. In this theory, Jesus’ birth from the virginal Mary refers to the apparently spontaneous growth of a mushroom from the earth without a visible seed. In reply, Hatsis argues that the virgin birth is a late addition to the stories of the life of Jesus; therefore, he claims, it cannot refer to a mushroom. We are to be ashamed for the unhistorical and unscholarly Christian mushroom theorists and respect instead the rigorous academic work of Hatsis.

It’s the same old piecemeal attack on Allegro’s theory of Christian origins as a secret mushroom cult, in the style of Andy Letcher. A sad, tired routine. Never mind that Allegro’s theory is but one scenario for psychedelics in Christianity. It’s actually not even clear what precisely Hatsis thinks of the subject of psychedelics in Christian history. He doesn’t say. Instead he just critiques Allegro’s theory of coded mushroom references in the life of Jesus and the scholars who have adopted it.

Hatsis is out for destruction, aiming to push the competition out of the rink. The article has no constructive point, in terms of theory or evidence. It only serves to promote Hatsis as respectable and rigorous against his perceived opponents in the historical psychedelics field. Yet the article is little more than posturing and fails in precisely the quality of rigor that Hatsis claims is so lacking from his chosen targets and that he claims to provide.

There is no evaluation of the arguments of his opponents. He does not allow them to speak for themselves with full quotations and full consideration of their arguments. He merely shows that each one connects the virgin birth to the mushroom’s growth without seed and dismisses each without analysis. At the end of the post I critique Hatsis’ presentation of Allegro’s argument in detail.

Hatsis acts as though historians agree about Christian origins and early Christian textual history. He uncritically assumes the historicity of Jesus and the apostles. He acts as though historical evidence is self-evident and not always tied to an interpretative framework. He tautologically uses the ‘consensus of historians’ to criticize a theory that explicitly challenges the ‘consensus of historians’.

He acts as if proving that the virgin birth is a late addition to the story of the life of Jesus means that the virgin birth cannot refer to a mushroom. He acts as though suggesting that the motivation for the story of the virgin birth was to cover up the accusation that Mary was a whore means that the virgin birth cannot also refer to a mushroom. He argues that because Mithras was virgin born and because Dionysus was virgin born, Jesus’ virgin birth was a pagan idea interpolated into the story of his life and therefore cannot refer to a mushroom. He cites Carl Ruck for the evidence that Dionysus was virgin born, yet ignores Ruck’s work relating Dionysus to mushrooms.

The tone of the piece is often joking, mocking, and, in places, vulgar. It is unbecoming of scholarship, which should strive for a neutral tone and prize the content of analysis over schoolyard taunts and jokes.

Hatsis needs to move past this simplistic focus on proving Allegro (and Jan Irvin, his favorite target) wrong. As Michael Hoffman showed a decade ago, the real task is to answer in what ways was Allegro right and in what ways was he wrong. Hatsis has to engage with not only the topic of psychedelics in Christian history but also the related topic of the ahistoricity of Jesus and the apostles. Hatsis uses the ‘consensus of historians’ regarding the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the Christian textual tradition to attack his chosen mushroom scholars. Yet this consensus is an illusion.

Hatsis, in his taunting, destructive way, wants to encourage historical psychedelic scholars to engage with historical and literary scholarship more than they have done. He should do the same and drop the ‘just-so’ story of Christian origins. Certainly he should stop using it to promote his credentials and allegiance to Prohibitionist academia.

Of course, to really improve his scholarship, he should study the Egodeath theory. Without it he will never understand that the virgin birth refers to the possibilism mind impregnated not by physical seed, but by the eternalism hidden thought source, producing new life, the mortal/immortal mix that is possibilism corrected by eternalism.


An example of Hatsis loaded presentation of Allegro’s arguments:

There is poor citation right from the start, which makes it difficult to evaluate his claims: Hatsis writes,  “Quoting from Pliny’s ancient description of the mushroom in his Natural History (c. 80 CE), Allegro writes “[fungi are the] greatest marvels of nature … belong[ing] to a class of things that spring up spontaneously and cannot be grown from seed [italics mine]”. Editorially, this is a mess and obfuscating. What parts of this are from Pliny? What passage of Pliny is this from? It turns out that these are the parts that Allegro quoted from Pliny. So, Allegro did not write that. Hatsis does not make clear what is Pliny and what is Allegro. It turns out to be all Pliny, and yet Hatsis writes that “Allegro writes”, allowing a reader to attribute ideas to Allegro that are not his. Sloppy at best, misleading at worst.

Moreover, Hatsis elides Allegro’s argument. Following the above he writes “Allegro then associates Jesus with the mushroom, using the notion of seedless birth as a parallel to the virgin birth; he continues, “The baby that resulted from this divine union was thus the ‘Son of God,’… [h]ere in the tiny mushroom, was God manifest, the ‘Jesus’ born of the Virgin”. You can see the eliding with the sudden mention of ‘divine union,’ which was not present in the first extract, and the word ‘thus’, indicating the conclusion to an argument. Where has the idea of divine union come from? What role does that play in Allegro’s argument? Hatsis does not provide his reader with the tools to evaluate the argument.

Rereading Allegro, the extent of Hatsis’ elision becomes more apparent. Before the sentences quoted by Hatsis, Allegro had been discussing the use by both the ancient Pliny and a modern mycologist of the language of childbirth to describe the growth of a mushroom. It is not merely Allegro and his followers who use the language of childbirth to describe the mushroom, as Hatsis’ unclear attribution and selective quotation would imply. Then Allegro shows that the ancients viewed it as a mystery how the ‘womb’ of the earth got ‘fertilized’. Again, it is not Allegro who viewed the growth of the mushroom as a marvel and a mystery, as Hatsis sloppy quoting implies. Allegro next discusses one explanation given by the ancients for that fertilization, namely that it was caused by lightning: the sky father god sends his lightning seed to the womb of the earth mother, which produces the mushroom. It is here that Hatsis’ second quotation from Allegro follows, “The baby that resulted…”

In describing Allegro’s argument, Hatsis makes it seem that Allegro based it merely on the seedlessness of a mushroom’s growth, but he leaves out the lightning theory and sexual analogy. Allegro’s argument for the virgin birth as referring to a mushroom is tied to a fuller context of argument and evidence than Hatsis displays, including linguistic, mythic, and cultic evidence. Instead of engaging with that fuller context, Hatsis artificially reduces it to the single dimension of ‘seedlessness’ and takes the easy route of dismissing it because Allegro was rejected by the academic establishment. Hatsis presentation of Allegro’s theory thus fails to be properly scholarly. He does not engage with Allegro’s theory or evidence directly or fully and seeks to hide this from the reader through elision.


Cutting edge conversation between Max Freakout and Cyber Disciple. In this episode Max and Cyb plan subjects for future podcast episodes.

Topics covered include:
The various modern approaches towards psychedelia
Esotericism and exotericism
The similarity between plant-spirit shamanism (such as Santo Daime) and esoteric Christianity
Entheogenic and placebo eucharist
The link between exotericism and prohibitionism
The legal position of ayahuasca churches
Drug policy reform and prohibition repeal
Corrupt dishonest nature of drug prohibition
Exotericist drive to perpetually delay control-seizure and transcendent enlightenment
Awareness of entheogenic eucharist in modern churches
Insidern/Outsider dynamic in Christianity
Different attitudes towards conversion among exoteric religions
Determinism/free-will contradiction in exoteric religion
Terence Mckenna’s psychedelic ideas, his progressive and trippy thinking and his limitations
New age attitudes towards psychedelia
Quantum woo-woo
Psychedelic culture and social tolerance compared to LGBT lifestyle
Nese Devenot’s Mckenna inspired writing
Psychedelic psychotherapy and its relevance to the egodeath theory
Personal and transpersonal issues
Freud’s concept of substitute wish fulfilment and how it can be used to analyse exotericism
Freud’s theory of mythological interpretation, Oedipus and Electra

Index of well-known people who had admitted psychedelic use, with links to quotations and sources:

In the 2010 documentary Beyond the Lighted Stage, Neil Peart says:

Words can carry different freight for different people, of course, but those who do have the sensitivity to pay the kind of attention to lyrics that I put into them, it’s wonderful to connect that way and to feel that you’re not playing down to anyone. We’ve always had the impression that people are just as smart as we are, so if we can figure this stuff out, that they can, too, you know, and we’re not being that, that terrible, damning word, “pretentious”. We’re not pretending anything. This is really what turned us on this year, you know. Lyrically, it’s always been a reflection of my times and the times I observe, but everyone is a reflection of me.


Peart writes for an audience sensitive to the coded allusions to intense, drug-based altered state experiencing, including self-control seizure and reconfiguration in the light of experiential shift from possiblism to eternalism.

“We’re not pretending anything” : lyrics are metaphorical reports of *experiencing*, not mere imagination about Greek gods, Xanadu, futuristic societies, robots, clockwork angels.

“people are just as smart as we are…they can [figure it out]” : Peart relies on audience to decipher. Rush as mystery band, requires metaphorical interpretation.

“reflection of my times and the times I observe…everyone is a reflection of me” : extreme solipsism typical of altered state, doubts about reality of external world, including other people. Mind in altered state interprets all things as leading to revelation about self, time and world

Quotation plays in part over video for song Subdivisions. Sample lyrics referring to eternalism and self-control cybernetics [see also on Subdivisions]:

In geometric order

growing up it all seemed so one-sided / opinions all provided / the future pre-decided

nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone

conform or be cast out

any escape might help to smooth / the unattractive truth / but the suburbs have no charms to soothe / the restless dreams of youth

the timeless old attraction [sung ‘timeless soul detraction’]

Get caught in ticking traps

My notes:

Road to Eleusis: ‘unveiling’ of ‘mystery’ as publicity event, despite Ruck’s claim that there was little publicity. It’s certainly announced by Wasson that way in his opening section of the book: the grand collaboration between mycologist, chemist, and classicist, finally revealing the truth about the ancient mystery cult.

Wasson needed confirmation of another ancient mushroom to corroborate his claim that soma of ancient India was mushroom. This helps explain why Ruck’s far more relevant Dionysus material was relegated to ‘additional’ evidence. If the book was meant to cause a stir, they failed because they over emphasized the main ritual at Eleusis at the expense of all the other rituals associated with Eleusis and the rest of Greek religious practice. At a glance, the book seems to deal with only the the one-time event at Eleusis, when in fact Ruck provides evidence for widespread entheogen use and knowledge in Greek culture.

Authors made it easy to dismiss and ignore due to brittleness of ergot identification (Hofmann admits this in his section) and to minimizing wine and Dionysus evidence at expense of grand gesture of ‘unveiling the mystery.’ Ruck provides something of a corrective here, alluding to a different identification, which he claims is sounder, and placing emphasis on wider entheogen knowledge and use in Greek, Roman, and Christian religion.

Wasson had already proposed in a lecture and Robert Graves had already published that mushroom was in Eleusis potion.
  • Wasson proposed mushroom in Eleusinian kykeon in 1956 in a [unpublished?] lecture.
  • Graves proposed and published it in 1960 Food for Centaurs and put stone relief carving from Northern Greece of Demeter and Persephone holding mushroom on cover of new edition of Greek Myths published in same year.
  • Then in 1976 Ruck says that Wasson proposed that they ‘solve’ the Eleusinian mystery. What was there to solve? Wasson himself and Graves had already made the point. Again, this intention to ‘solve’ the mystery seems like a publicity event. Ruck provides plenty of evidence for Wasson’s interest in publicity for his earlier work. Elitist Wasson tried to set himself up as balance to the popularizing Leary, walking a fine line of publicity and defense of elite culture.

Typical Ruck problems:

  • Stops after finding presence of plants, mistakes presence of plants with the ‘mystery’.
  • Relatedly, this knowledge of the presence of plants was held by only an elite few.

Also, Makes Prohibition-compliant claim that ‘abuses and excesses’ caused Prohibition.

E. R. Dodds, author of Greeks and the Irrational: still very respected by mainstream Classicists. Graves regarded as poet and novelist, not scholar. Ruck blacklisted for decades.

Ruck seems to imply that Eliade knew differently, but published drug-diminishing view of shamanism due to Prohibition:
“Mircea Eliade, the renowned authority on religion, mysticism, and shamanism, […] disavow[ed] his own considerable evidence about shamanism in Siberia and elsewhere and declare[d] that drugs were characteristic only of the decadent last stages of a cult, affording only inauthentic hallucinatory communion with the divine. Inevitably, anyone who thought differently was assumed to have ruined his mind on drugs.”

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]:

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.


Metaphorical Psychedelic Eternalism
July 2018
« Aug    


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow cyberdisciple on