Terence Mckenna denounces relativism

[Fang]

[Adonai One]

Let's force humanity into one way of thought, one set of knowledge. All else will be censored for compassion of those who cannot discern for themselves. /sarcasm

[Guardian]

I think Terence is a pioneer in some respects and a detriment in others. He's done well in making people aware of the consciousness that pervades all of reality which can be understood through the use of hallucinogens. However, he has also steered people away from understanding the nature of the social structures on this planet. He has denied the existence of the military-industrial-banking conspiracy, and now appears to be calling channelings an "insult to intelligence" and listening to victims of negative thought-forms a "pernicious form of idiocy".

These appear to be blatantly contradictory positions from Terence. On the one hand he wants to explore some mysteries of consciousness, and in the next sentence he wants to shut down discussion on others.

Though, I do remember there being a question of Terence being involved with the FBI or CIA. Whether that was debunked or confirmed, I think is still up for debate.

[Parsons]

This is actually an anti-scientific argument masquerading as a scientific one. By the that I mean he is discounting data for the sheer reason he finds it 'patently absurd', which is simply his own personal bias. It is quite ironic this is his position because most of the ideas he supports are patently absurd to most of the scientific community. So he is actually eroding his own position with this little speech.

[Fang]

It is interesting, the level of defensiveness here...

By the that I mean he is discounting data for the sheer reason he finds it 'patently absurd', which is simply his own personal bias

This is the relativism he is talking about "well that's just like your opinion [bias] maaaan".

It is quite ironic this is his position because most of the ideas he supports are patently absurd to most of the scientific community

It would be ironic if it were actually relevant or true. Terence is regarded as a very smart man with theories that are untestable thus outside the reach of scientific scrutiny, what members of the scientific communities personal opinions are on him hardly matters in terms of being "scientific" as the opinions can not be backed by actual science.
This is an address to the once proud and honourable psychedelic community, addressing an issue which was a major cause of it's decline in value to the rest of the world and the decline in honest investigation of the unknown. He is not saying that all ideas should be held under the scrutiny of the scientific method, I'm not even sure why you are bringing the scientific community into this lol

His ideas are "far out" but there is a reasoning behind them, as well as experience, the problem is the experience is far out lol
Any form of reasoning behind an idea is better than just spewing it from your intuition.

So he is actually eroding his own position with this little speech.

He would be if what you said above were true, which the overwhelming majority of people viewing must not think so as they have responded positively to his message.

Guardian, I think he has had a positive and negative influence as well, the negative mainly being due to uneducated fools cherry picking quotes to justify a drug habit or entertaining transcendental notions

These appear to be blatantly contradictory positions from Terence. One the one hand he wants to explore some mysteries of consciousness, and in the next sentence he wants to shut down discussion on others.

If you want to keep moving forward it's important to recognize steps backward.

[Parsons]

By the that I mean he is discounting data for the sheer reason he finds it 'patently absurd', which is simply his own personal bias

This is the relativism he is talking about "well that's just like your opinion [bias] maaaan".

Well, it is "like, his opinion, man". Are you claiming what he is saying is objectively true; that the phenomenon he discounts (such as channeling) do not exist at all?

---

You provide no description of the video in the first post. How would relate this to the Law of One?

[Sagittarius]

By the that I mean he is discounting data for the sheer reason he finds it 'patently absurd', which is simply his own personal bias

This is the relativism he is talking about "well that's just like your opinion [bias] maaaan".

Well, it is "like, his opinion, man". Are you claiming what he is saying is objectively true; that the phenomenon he discounts (such as channeling) do not exist at all?

---

You provide no description of the video in the first post. How would relate this to the Law of One?

What something actually is and how the majority of people see it are two very different things.

He addresses how we use the information for work in consciousness rather then the information itself. I.e when a misinformed notion is used to rank something like "spiritual awareness" into do/do not or have/dont have.

When he talks about science he is talking about the scientific method which is what science is. You don't need constitutionally branded "scientists" to use or learn from science. At the moment the brand is needed because majority don't use science efficiently yet.

[reeay]

There's no need to hold non-scientific ways of knowing with contempt as he suggested, bc you know, many religious and woo woo folks hold science in contempt... It's like looking into a mirror lol.