I think that to claim that 5 meo DMT (or any drug for that matter) can give a correct understanding of the true nature of some Ultimate Reality is patent nonsense.This is not to deny that certain drugs can give a subjectively very convincing notion of 'where its at'.

Personally I would like to hear Dr Balls opinion on these matters after he experiences the effects of 5 meo DMT at dose at which he reaches the states he alludes to-but I would like him to have 100mg of IM ketamine administered to him on top of this to see if his experience changed.Im sure it would and I suspect his conclusions may also alter.

I think we need to accept that our capacities for understanding are not limitless; this should allow us to rejoice in a state of contented humility.

Didn't read the thread yet. But I just felt the need to say that Terence McKenna was really one-of-a-kind. Someone that, even though I disagree with most of his hypotheses, I feel I can connect to on a deep spiritual level. And a true poet. I wish I could speak with a tenth the eloquence that he could.

Very sad that he left us before I was old enough to get to hear him speak in person.

I find it funny & disturbing that so many people get fussed when someone claims to have found the ultimate truth of life, surely someone having found the truth is something to be celebrated, not something to be despised.

For those that have already found the truth they rejoice at another being coming even close toSelf realization, while those that have not yet found it either don't care, follow the teachings of the one who has found it to see if they can find it through the same avenue, or they pass it off as pretentious BS

I wonder where the pretension really lies if someone is really so bothered by one little man saying 'i have found the ultimate truth'


When it comes to Terrence he was a very confused man, but he openly admitted this
Martins attack on him does seem like a cry for some fame imo, as he knows it will get the psych communities attention
Talking down on a dead man that can not answer back, you just don't do that


I think all of Balls points about Mckenna stand firm, but the way he expressed it was degrading to Mckenna's legacy

You can’t find something that doesn’t exist.

Saying it doesn't exist can be a copout imo, its the mind's way of justifying not yet finding it

IMO Its the only thing that ever exists

No, I actually believe that there might not be any “ultimate” truth or “ultimate” reality. For example, what if “reality” is nested in another “deeper reality”, and that reality is nested in a still deeper one, and there is no end? An infinite progression without end – no ultimate reality, no final destination, no absolute goal.

Rationally looking at it... if you look at everything in nature there are opposites
So surely this universe of finite temporary changing forms is supported by an infinite eternal unchanging void

My experience confirms this, although maybe that experience is a delusion, but it's the greatest delusion a human can experience IMO

The human mind is limited in its capacity – limited both by the number of neurons, synapses, etc. and limited by finite time. Our imaginations, being products of our minds, are therefore limited, so it’s very reasonable to assume that there are “things” – ideas, concepts, and who knows what else – that lie beyond our imaginations.

The DMT experience has given me an incredible glimpse into what might be, but as deep and vast as the DMT experience is, it is still something experienced by living human beings, and it is only a glimpse. So I’m forced to acknowledge that there is much that remains outside of my comprehension, forever beyond my grasp.

Yeah, i definitely feel it is beyond the capacity of our limited finite minds, but i also feel that seeing that our true identity is NOT our minds then gives space & clarity to understand infinity, as it is what we are already, its our nature, but its a very silent understanding, obviously, considering the mind is not there

I got halfway through the article and got bored and irritated at his arrogant use of absolutes. He uses them all over the place, and makes himself out to be superior to those who don't share such beliefs. He refers to the energy centers and their meanings in almost a scientific nature. It's not to say that Terrence wasn't disillusioned. It's to say that this guy is waaay time disillusioned in his absolute view on life.

I apologize for resurrecting this old long-dormant thread. My intention is not to pour more oil into the fire, but to express my gratitude that this thread actually existed.

It was quite recently when I came across Martin Ball´s podcasts and texts. I think that Ball makes some very interesting points in his work. However, what struck me wasn´t the content that much, but rather the form.

I have read + listened to McKenna a lot. What I always appreciated was his rationalist and scientific attitude a la "that´s fine if you don´t believe me... just smoke this, and make your own judgement" If I am not mistaken, McKenna studied biology at UC-Berkeley, which I think contributed to his "scientific" approach to the topic.

Part of any science must be what K.R.Popper called "falsifiability": any scientific theory or hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. Otherwise it is not science but a dogma, religion, ethics etc. Popper wasn´t denouncing religion, ethics etc., he only wanted to understand the somehow distinguish them from science. After reading / listening to McKenna, I think he was a true psychedelic "scientist": he was offering his theories (not dogmatic truths) to be falsified: "Smoke this, and we can talk later..."

While I quite like some of M.Ball´s points and thoughts, I think he completely lost any scientific credit. It is a pity, because I think he could seriously contribute to our understanding of entheogens, was he willing to engage in a bi-directional rational ("scientific" discussion. The way M.Ball puts his "theories" as "unfalsifiable truths", he excludes himself from any rational discussion. "You don´t agree with me? That´s just another proof that you were led astray, another support for what I am saying." One cannot lead any dialogue this way, because it would rule out any rational discussion. Not only does such method of argumentation exclude itself from any "scientific" examination, it also rules out any rational discussion at all: "if you don´t agree with me, then you are wrong."

I thinks that´s exactly why we cannot have any rational discussion about this topic as well, even if we wanted to

P.S.: Sorry again for bringing this topic up again, I didn´t mean to bore you to death - I just wanted to organize my own thoughts on this "discussion". Anyways: this thread has been dormant for nearly year and a half. Anyone changed their opinion?

I back up Terence McKenna 100%.
I don't know this ball guy.
He can bugger off if he thinks he knows ANYTHING.

"I don't know if you figured out this shuffle. But I have, and I know that I don't know anything more than you know."

-- Terence McKenna

I locked this topic since I think that all that can be said is already said. There is not need to reopen this touchy subject.


Kind regards,

The Traveler