Ok so I sent some of your responses to him, and I just got a message back.
-Martin-
None of these comments really have much substance to them, so there isn't much for me to genuinely comment on. They basically all take the route of attacking the messenger rather than looking carefully at the message, or how the messenger came to know the message. In other words, they just want to criticize who/what they think "Martin" is without looking at anything I've said or done. That puts these responses into the category of egoic statements that aren't really engaged in genuine discussion or consideration of ideas. They are platitudes that are not backed up by any kind of argument or discussion. With that said, I'm copying the comments below with specific responses.
"After a few good psychedelic experiences, we can all dream up theories about the nature of reality, the nature of existence, and the nature of “God”. (I’m guilty of this myself.) But positing a theory or an idea is one thing, claiming to know the “truth” is another."
While this is true, this is a vapid and insubstantial response to my sharing of the entheological paradigm. Just because others, the writer of this comment included, have come up with half-baked ideas about the nature of reality, it doesn’t mean that mine are as well. There is not a single consideration for even one detail of what I’ve shared here, so this critique is entirely lacking substance. It is dismissive without looking at the information that is available. I’ve gone through a lot of trouble to make my ideas available and accessible in ways that are easy to understand and communicate. If this writer thinks my ideas are so easy to dismiss, why not actually address even ONE idea? One cannot assess whether my ideas are true or not without addressing them directly.
"It’s true that Mr. Ball might be right. It’s also true that any of the other 147,322,409 theories about the nature of existence might be right. It’s much more likely that none of us are right – that the "ultimate" nature of existence is beyond human comprehension. I accept that. Most members of this forum accept that. But Mr. Ball does not."
It’s obvious that I don’t accept this platitude that the nature of ultimate reality is beyond human comprehension and this commenter does not bother to investigate why that is, or what I’ve claimed. As with the comment above, there is nothing specific here – just general comments without a single reference to anything specific. These commentators could stand to take a philosophy class or two and learn how to present intelligent arguments as just repeating beliefs does not count as making any kind of argument or intelligent discussion.
If someone wants to dismiss the entheological paradigm, then they are going to need to do better than this. What, precisely, does this commentator disagree with? What does this person think is actually wrong with what I’ve presented? Do they have a better explanation? Can they account for all the things that I can account for with the entheological paradigm in a way that is clearer and more concise and accurate? In science and philosophy, theories are argued based on their merits of what they can and cannot explain and how free they are from subjective beliefs and perspectives. Anyone wanting to legitimately dismiss the entheological paradigm will need to engage in that level of discourse – not just dismissing what I’ve shared without making a single relevant argument. It also requires that they actively try it out. The entheological paradigm comes with specific techniques and methods. One has to try these first before making any kind of determinative evaluation, at a minimum.
"Authenticity without humility doesn’t have much value."
According to whom? From where did this bit of wisdom come and what makes it true other than that the writer believes it? Ego statement through and through. What does this writer even mean by “authenticity” and “humility”? I’ve written and spoken a great deal about what it means to be authentic, and of the egoic nature of promoting ideas of "humility". Can this writer comment on what I’ve shared about this? Can they make a clear statement of why they are disagreeing with my definition of authenticity or humility? Is there any substance here, or just repeating worn-out beliefs that have no real basis in objective reality? This is vague and meaningless.
"so much arrogance from this guy its unbelieavable.
What does this writer mean by this? How, exactly, am I arrogant? What if everything I’m saying is 100% true? If so, can I still be arrogant for being true? Is that possible? Once again, there is nothing specific here.
"And how surprisingly creative, someone taking psychedelics and claiming to have found The Truth (and yes I tried 5-meo-dmt and dont agree with what he said, and no im not at all a mckenna fanboy )"
You see how this is going – once again, nothing specific. This writer wants to dismiss me for having claimed to have found the Truth without addressing a single thing specific about what I’ve shared. There is no argument here whatsoever. What does this writer mean that they’ve tried 5-MeO and disagrees with me? Disagrees in what way? About what? And how much experience does this person have here? Tried it once or twice? And if this person really wants to evaluate what I’ve said, how about trying what I’ve shared about working symmetrically and working with ones energy? How about actually trying the advice I’ve given and then evaluating its worth. Dismissing what I say without even attempting to put it into practice is not evaluating what I’ve said at all. Until someone actually tries what I’ve shared, they have no basis to comment as they are just repeating their personal egoic beliefs without any kind of empirical basis. Even if they’ve tried 5-MeO before, they would need to try it with my techniques and methods in order to actually begin to assess what I’ve said about it. Anything less is dishonest and not a genuine investigation. It’s lazy and egoic.
"I think Ball is jealous and egotistical. A man 10 years dead (McKenna) is still making his (Ball's) life work look like a shadow rather than the main object. . . . Also, I wasn't being facetious nor exaggerating when I said as far as I could tell his main focus was on getting paid, and getting laid by young, ethereal, beautiful women."
Yet again, not a single thing that is specific – just general, unfounded statements. And this writer’s comment on my “main focus?” Get real! This is just pathetic and not worthy of comment.
Look – when it comes down to it, I’ve offered a point-by-point, even a word-by-word critique of Terence and everything that he’s said about DMT, including the way he went about talking about it. Everything I presented was from the consistent and coherent perspective of the entheological paradigm, which is a complex, integrated analysis of the nature of reality. I developed this view from doing serious, transformative energetic work within myself where I fundamentally altered the way I am able to experience myself and the world around me. I am able to thoroughly explain and give details for any comment I make about others or about the nature of reality and it is consistent, thorough, and comprehensive. In other words, I can offer easily articulated support for any position that I take or express and ground my comments in observable facts. I don’t engage in speculation, metaphysics, or belief systems. Anyone who wants to legitimately critique me needs to deal with all of this – which not a single one of the comments given above do. So, they’ve all decided to superficially focus on the messenger (and don’t even do a good job there), rather than the message. These comments are superficial and vacuous.
They are also to be expected. Each comment here is reflective of ego-based reactions, show no articulation of logic, and present not a single piece of evidence for any of their so-called conclusions. That’s how egos work. They are not logical, rational, or grounded in reality. They choose their beliefs and then promote them without any substance or reason.
I know that what I present is challenging to virtually everyone, and that my way of presenting the entheological paradigm is challenging as well. It’s all about energy, however, and about authenticity. What I’m presenting is unique and my method of presenting is unique as well, and therefore bound to get peoples’ egos all wound up and reactive. There is nothing surprising about this. Just keep in mind that I’m determined to share the truth for the benefit and liberation of all humans and am not interested in wining a popularity contest or influencing people with my personality. My only concern is uncompromising Truth and Reality. What people think of me is not my concern. For those who are open and willing to look the truth in the face, it is obvious that what I am sharing is true and genuine, as are my methods of presenting. I’m a challenge, yes, but I’m also telling the truth.
---
There it is people, discuss.
(I wish Martin could be here himself to discuss)
