Hello all,
Maybe it's time for me to step out of the shadows regarding this topic. For it was me who streamlined the original classification method and added both alternative classifications to the wiki as well. So, I assume full responsibility for what happens in the entities section of the Hyperspace Lexicon. Also, I would like to thank the topic starter and others in this thread for thinking about Hyperspace Lexicon and how we could improve it. Now back to topic.
As has been already put forward, NGC is lacking a good credibility in our community. Simply put, a guy with a few posts is not as trustworthy as Terence McKenna with his Self-Transforming Machine Elves, or Hyperspace Fool with his countless posts. It's like a forth grader who designs a theory which challenges the relativity theory of Albert Einstein or Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics. But what is more important: the information or the source?
Like the topic starter pointed out:
InLaKesh said:
NGC_2264's version is the same than thinking everything is just love,light and rainbows , just the oposite side of the coin.
And this other side of the coin was completely lacking in our lexicon! Why is the hypotheses: “Entities are good. Sure, they can teach us seemingly harsh lessons, but they are good nonetheless” would be more true than “Entities are evil. Sure, they can teach us seemingly good lessons, but they are evil nonetheless”? I do not think that we can, based on our own experience, prove either of those hypotheses wrong.
Also, where does such a belief come from that one has complete control over the entities as long as the set and setting are right? I have read many topics on the Nexus in the last 5 years and saw that even the most experienced travelers, despite perfect set and setting, sometimes encounter the so called bad trips and evil entities. Most of them, in order to integrate those experiences, have re-appraised them as difficult trips and harsh teachers.
Therefore, I believe that we are witnessing a publication bias here. Because, after a bad trip occurs, a person either leaves the psychedelic scene and never posts anything again or re-appraises the experience to something more happy. So, we see a lot of topics about “love, light, rainbows”, but only a few quality topics about “darkness, deception, evil”. If I remember correctly, NGC is the first person in 5 years time that I am here, who actually systematically reviewed his bad trips.
In my point of view, NGC's report is a shining brilliant in the otherwise underrepresented study of bad trips. His system, although the content seems weird and unorthodox, is nowhere schizophrenic. The system is logical, well-organized and clear - virtues a psychotic person would never achieve. That's why I was so perplexed when I saw it. Finally, a genuine attempt to review bad trips in a systematic manner. Wow!
I do in no way, shape or form state that NGC's system is “The Truth”. No system, topic or experience would qualify for such a term. However, NGC's report gives us a nice counter-balance to all those “positive experience reports and wonderful lessons”. Maybe, the rabbit hole is not leading to absolute light, but to the deepest darkness, which only looks like light? Who knows the answer?
With kind regards.
