Pinchbeck written up in student newspaper

GET OVER THE 2012 BULLSHIT, DANIEL!

Teh Intarwebz make us SMRT, paradigm metaphysical consciousness noosphere reality fractal sacred geometry hologram $$ Maya ayahuasca mescaline peyote mushroom 2012 calendar endtime. Haven't you read it all before? Sheesh.

I would tend to agree with you charlie25, and I would say that I've also taken a lot from Pinchbeck's work. There is a percentage of his writing that I've not been able to open up to, but perhaps that's only my problem; and really, who can really expect anything to speak equally to everyone? I think the most important thing is something that you've mentioned, and that I didn't think of right away though perhaps I should have, for it's such an obvious and important point. Daniel Pinchbeck DOES publicly represent a view that is important and marginalized (although growing stronger, or perhaps just getting louder) and yeah, maybe we're not going to see eye to eye on the details, but he seems to be devoting his own personal energy to exploring these issues and perhaps he has ended up exposing himself to a lot of negative attention simply because of the way he boldly and publicly asserts a view that is, as I said, marginalized. That being said, I definitely wouldn't agree that he's anything like Leary (good or bad). I think he's one of many who are taking a shot at trying to help with this coming/current crisis (and that's great, we need MANY and diverse peoples to obtain perspective) and maybe you could relate him to Leary because his work, and his name, has become more mainstream and ubiquitous than some of the others who are contributing work towards our Global crisis, but I think the similarities end there. Anyway, the point is I suppose we don't need to agree entirely, the important thing is spreading awareness and someone like Pinchbeck seems to be trying to raise that awareness, and to my best judgment doing so with good intention and with an honest effort. I am thankful that work like Pinchbeck's in penetrating closer and closer to mainstream culture, and hope that the backlash is a sign that people are thinking deeply about these issues and that the need for change is sinking into the dark, still places that it must reach.

I've taken a lot from Pinchbecks work - I think it's fantastic, and I applaud his work, and his resilience. I'm continually amazed at how much shit he's been getting recently. It needs to be said that Daniel publicly represents a point of view that a *lot* of people share, especially regarding entheogens and rejection of out and out materialism and rationalism. To people who disagree with this view, Daniel is a public figure for them to hurl shit at. Bad style...

I just woke up and I'm not at my most eloquent, but you get the gist.

Though not everything Pinchbeck says is verifiably true, I think he takes more heat than he deserves. If you truly believe the world is a collective dream influenced by thought, then is it so wrong to try and put it out there that maybe the world as we know it will be different in a few years? It seems like he's planting a psychic seed in the collective unconscious. Now, I'm not saying you can think yourself rich or the future is all roses or anything like that, but is it so hard to believe that perhaps we are capable of more? Either way, should be some big parties in December 2012.

I was fond of the Wolverine imagery. My hope is that when the cultural apocalypse comes, Pinchbeck will be there to lead the Xavier School of psychedelic mysticism with the sheer power of his DMT skeleton and retractable needles of ketamine. I'd say I'm probably more on the Magneto side of things, but then I'd never get to make out with Gambit.

The review didn't seem to "tear" me "a new one" - perhaps we didn't read the same article? Whoever wrote this comment seems to have little familiarity with my ideas but wants to find reasons to put me down. I guess that is cool? I certainly don't blame some evil "they" for everything bad. My perspective is more that we have serious design flaws in our current civilization, and need to find design solutions to those flaws. One positive aspect of psychedelics is that they can act as deconditioning agents, so you see that the social reality is an artificial construct. I don't think psychedelics are "The Answer" - I see them as tools that can be used properly or misused.

I also want to note that I recently launched a web magazine, Reality Sandwich ([link] which presents many different perspectives on the current transformations we are experiencing as a planetary culture. Please check it out.

I would still tend to defend Pinchbeck. "Hard, reductionist science" is not the only way to write. I have myself graduated from "humanistic studies" (Polish philology & Germanic philology (in Poland we usually study literature, language and culture of a particular area together, so far there is no such facculty as for example "English literature") and I have seen some examples of what an orthodox scientific approach can do to humanistic/social science ("Geisteswissenschaften"). It's perfectly OK in phonology, the most "mathematical" part of linguistics, but a similar approach to semantics is in my opinion a disaster.
As for psychedelia, I'm happy with people writing on a level of "cultural criticism" and not pure science. It's actually much more readable... My own little ambition is to introduce gender perspective further into psychedelic studies - and in my opinion it's possible only if we accept such studies not only in the familiar areas of medicine and law, but also much more "fluid" ones like literature and cultural anthropology.

So wait a minute - we're not in need of a massive paradigm shift? And we're not a bunch of idiots compared to our far-off descendants? I thought that the nature of progress was in every generation's ability to surpass its parent generation.

I'm not sure I see a problem in the desire to open and increase awareness as a general method of activism.

ugh. People like Leary and now Pinchbeck with their pseudoscience philosophy of meta-consciousness (or whatever) crap are only hurting the field of consciousness studies and the cause of psychedelic research in general. I can't believe they seriously think they're actually helping anybody self-actualize; they just come off looking like attention whores.

I found this review kind of funny, and yet kind of sad. I'd agree with a lot of the reviewers points about Pinchbeck, and I thought he actually wrote a fairly compelling article with many interesting points...but then, in the end, he seemed to completely cop-out. The very last line, regarding social reformation, was simply "Let's try it without the drugs this time". To me (especially based on the content of the rest of the article), this came off as total shit. It almost felt like the reviewer threw that line in there to fend off any criticism of his article?? I don't know, but in any case that attitude is absolutely deplorable and a large reason why we're in the mix we're in. The fact is drugs are here, they grow naturally on our Planent and the only reason they seem to effect us (from a purely scientific point of view) is that we've co-evolved over time and share similar, but not identical, characteristics which can alter the normal functioning of our bodies if introduced into that system. In short: the only reason there's any such thing as consciousness altering drugs seems to be co-evolution, the similarity of all life on the planet (on a bio-chemical level, at least) and the manipulability of our natural body systems. Sure there are many synthetic drugs, but they operate under the same prinicpal...they are simply synthesized instead of organic occurring chemicals. So "let's try it without the drugs" is like saying let's try it with a different body chemistry. We don't necessarily have control over some aspects of our situation, as much as some people would like to believe we're entirely in control. This review seems to magnify the point that you certainly don't have to be perfect in order to see someone else's flaws...so perhaps we should just fuck off with all the competition and criticism and turn the analytical eye inwards instead.