After studying Martin Ball's work and brief communications with him, and after reading
Dr. Martin Ball - Entheogenicist - Welcome discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus , I felt compelled to offer my perspective, because I feel a little outrage at how the "community" (not that "groups" actually exist in reality) has come down on this man, excepting a rare few.
This is my overview take on Ball/McKenna and the perspectives everyone has on these individuals:
This physical world appears to be structured on a duality: proton/electron, north-pole/south-pole, up/down, tall/short, big/small, far/near, awake/asleep, night/day, etc ... Most people will agree to this as a fact of physical existence and the foundation to any and all perception. And so it seems to be with the human mind: left-brain/right-brain, arts/science, emotion-feeling/natural-laws+logic, subjective/objective, and so forth.
And when it comes to Ball/McKenna, I see these elements of human nature play out as follows (with some lenient consideration that Ball is heavily into the arts, but is also struggling to be somewhat scholarly/scientific in a professional sense):
B: the science/reason/logic that can be extracted from psychedelic experiences.
M: the art/feelings/emotions that can be extracted from psychedelic experiences.
B: those tending to lean more conservatively as we tend to use that word.
M: those tending to lean more liberally as we tend to use that word.
B: those that care more about laws/designs of nature.
M: those that care more about personal experience.
B: those that argue objectively with findings of fact that could stand the test of an evidentiary hearing in a court of law.
M: those that argue subjectively utilizing personalities, impressions, intuitions, ad-hominem attacks.
B: those that are "individualists" and emphasize personal responsibility and accountability.
M: those that are "communists/socialists" and emphasize shared-responsibilities.
B: those that are independent-minded, and could care less about "what others think".
M: those that are dependent-minded, and care a lot about "what others think".
And so on, I think a reader gets the picture I am painting. And the divisions are fuzzy, with some people 90/10 one way and the other way, and others 60/40 or 30/70. But my general impression as someone that is probably 80% along the scientific/non-feeling/non-emotional/legal-argumemt/measure-weigh-physics lines, is that the attacks on Dr. Ball are ummm ... full of hypocrisy and misunderstanding, and full of "community agenda", with very little foundation in reason and reality. And in other debates/attacks, I found a haughty elitism which uses erudite volcabulary to express superiority and enlightenment (ultimately, evidently, to establish the winning argument), which almost made me barf
In conclusion, my somewhat cursory sense is that Dr. Ball cares to extract whatever science he can from worlds beyond words, which is not an easy task, and he also makes an attempt to delineate between that which is illusory and that which is reality, that which is merely personal projection, intution, and dreams, and that which is measureable, repeatable, and inarguable. And he is doing this to clarify and demystify the psychedelic experience to get at the objective truth, the laws and functions of nature.
Some may say "there is no truth", which is indeed the case in subjective matters, but there is truth in the laws of nature; it is true that if you drop a rock, it will fall due to gravity at a rate which can be calculated, and not float up into the clouds. And it seems that most people don't understand this, and they attack Dr. Ball because they see him as "attacking" McKenna, whereas, if they cared to be a little objective, they would understand that he is just exposing McKenna as someone that should not be relied upon for any objective understanding of the psychedelic experience. McKenna output was art, and Ball is trying to make his output science.
It's not a matter of Ball vs McKenna, it's just a matter of art vs science. And Ball only cares to make the distinction, because many people don't seem to understand that there is one, and may possibly, worry a little that (as is self-evident in the words of psychonauts) people get too wrapped up in the artistic/emotional/subjective aspects of the psychedelic experience, and not enough are involved in assembling the the science/inarguable/objective aspects, if they have even ever considered that side at all.
It's like comparing the Dark Ages to the Scientific Age derived from Natural Laws. The real potential of psychedelics will be achieved when their science is understood, not by endless mysticism, intuitive theories and superstitions (fun and personally enlightening though it may be). And it seems to me this is Dr. Ball's angle, and it not something psychonauts should be deriding and bashing him for.