Last weekend, I asked Rick why he's repeatedly stated that he feels it is important to use a monotheistic model to map DMT experiences in order to get traction with "Westerners." I asked why "gaining traction" was important in a model...isn't it important to be accurate when modelling something? Isn't accuracy more important than acceptance/traction? I asked him didn't he think it would be inherently limiting and possibly dangerous to try to use such a familiar/simple model to map something as ontologically challenging as DMT?
You know what the good doctor replied?
"I've been asked this question before and what I have to say is this. When you're fluent in biblical hebrew, have read all the kabbalistic and related texts, and have reviewed the rabbinical commentary, then we can have this conversation."
:lol:lolwut:lol:
So not only did he assume that I know nothing about my own heritage (and he could have asked whether or not I had any understanding or what level of understanding I have) but he also ignored the question while making an appeal to authority.
But here's the thing that really gets me...he said he's been asked this question before, and it seems, imo, to be a rather important question if he's proposing a model for understanding...especially when the model proposed has so many clear issues. So, IF he's been asked this important question before, why is he dodging the question rather than coming up with a meaningful response? This seems remarkably defensive and rigid.
