Talk:Terence McKenna: Difference between revisions
MarshallKe (talk | contribs) |
MarshallKe (talk | contribs) →"Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience": new section |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC) |
:This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
== "Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience" == |
|||
This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of [[WP:RS]]. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. Find a RS that supports this statements. [[User:MarshallKe|MarshallKe]] ([[User talk:MarshallKe|talk]]) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:53, 23 September 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terence McKenna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stoned Apes Theory in popular culture: a popular NFT project called Stoned Apez was based on McKenna's Stoned Ape theory. Their site it https://stonedapez.club . Several of the creators discussed the origin for their idea on a Twitter Spaces held 09/23/2021 70.176.63.7 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: Would only be included if it becomes particularly notable, which it doesn't appear to be at this time. Seems to just be trying to get free advertising by taking a similar name — IVORK Talk 23:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"enthalpic" not "entropic" Quist8 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- as per spource "When I told McKenna that I wasn’t sure exactly how his timewave theory worked, he launched into a vigorous explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existence emerges from the clash of two forces: not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repetitious, conservative; novelty is creative, disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale, you can see these two forces grinding against each other. You can also see that novelty is winning." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-psychedelic-guru-terence-mckenna-goofing-about-2012-prophecy/
- Screamliner (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Twin Peaks
The character Dr Lawrence Jacoby was based loosely on McKenna 2603:800C:2D00:6300:F166:4E:905D:6D2C (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
"bond harmine [...] with their own neural DNA"
Is that a literal quote from the book or from the subjects? Then it should be marked properly. If it's not a quote it should be rephrased because "bonding a chemical with the neural DNA" is not a thing. --mfb (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- This comes from Terence's book, True Hallucinations, where he describes his brother's explanation of what he believed the Experiment at La Chorrera would chemically do. This involved "superconducting harmine-psylocybin matrix intercalating between the rungs of neural DNA" or similar wording. Later after Terence had a moment to contemplate this, he compared this wording as more of a magical incantation than actually physically true. Yes, the article could possibly be more clear about this. MarshallKe (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
"Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience"
This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of WP:RS. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Find a RS that supports this statements. MarshallKe (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Neopaganism articles
- Low-importance Neopaganism articles
- B-Class Occult articles
- Low-importance Occult articles
- WikiProject Occult articles
- B-Class Altered States of Consciousness articles
- Low-importance Altered States of Consciousness articles