Podcast 124 – Trialogue: “Cannabis”


Guest speakers: Terence McKenna, Ralph Abraham, Rupert Sheldrake


Terence McKenna: “In the absence of cannabis the dream life seems to become much richer. This causes me to sort of form a theory, just for my own edification, that cannabis must in some sense thin the boundary between the conscious and unconscious mind. … And if you smoke cannabis, the energy which would normally be channeled into dreams is instead manifest in the reveries of the cannabis intoxication.”

Terence McKenna: “And what I really value about cannabis is the way in which it allows one to be taken by surprise by unexpected ideas.”

Terence McKenna: “Alcohol, on the other hand, is demonstrably one of the most destructive of all social habits. What a bright world it would be if every alcoholic were a pothead.”

Terence McKenna: “For the 19th century, and for all of European civilization, cannabis was something that was eaten in the form of various sugared confections that were prepared. And this method of ingestion changes cannabis into an extremely powerful psychedelic experience. … For the serious eater of hashish, it is the portal into a true artificial paradise whose length and breadth is equal to that of any of the artificial paradises that we’ve discovered in modern psychedelic pharmacology.”

Terence McKenna: “To my mind, the whole of Indian and Middle Eastern civilization is steeped in the ambiance of hashish.”

Terence McKenna: “Hashish, cannabis, has an ambiance of its own. It has a morphogenetic field, and if you enter into that morphogenic field you enter into an androgynous, softened, abstract, colorful, and extraordinarily beautiful world.”

Terence McKenna: “There’s a deeper issue which is the zeitgeist, if you will, of cannabis, which carries a certain implied danger to establishment values which put such a premium on clear-eyed hard work and Presbyterian rectitude.”

Ralph Abraham: “It [cannabis] is medicine for cultural evolution.”

Terence McKenna: “If I judiciously control my intake of cannabis, it like gives me a second wind and a third wind to go forward with creative activity.”

Terence McKenna: “It can turn you into a stupor, sort of lazy, loutish person. On the other hand, it can allow you to do very hard work for very long periods of time. So you sort of have to manage it, and I think a lot of people don’t learn to manage it.”

Terence McKenna: “We [the U.S.A.] represent values which are incomprehensible to educated Europeans.”

Terence McKenna: “Governments have always been, and continue to this day to be, the major purveyor of drugs, worldwide.”

Terence McKenna: “The day the Russians left [Afghanistan], the hashish market in Northern California collapsed catastrophically and has never been able to build itself back to previous levels.”


PCs – Right click, select option
Macs – Ctrl-Click, select option

Posted in Cannabis, Culture, Ralph Abraham, Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna (mp3), Trialogues and tagged , , , , , .

One Comment

  1. Comments from original blog page: http://www.matrixmasters.net/blogs/?p=253


    The most comprehensive exposition of the cannabis leaf I’ve heard in years.

    Perhaps there should be academic courses on the judicious management of marijuana?

    Thanks again Lorenzo. Excellent stuff.



    In the book Mavericks of the Mind: Conversations for the new millenium David J. Brown and Rebecca Norvick interview Riane Eisler and husband David Loyd in the chapter titled Raising the Chalice. With that said! When Terrence is talking about how culture is against cannabis it really resonates with the views of Riane. She talks about how our culture for the last 5 thousand years or so has been a ‘dominator’ culture run by men. The counter-culture to the ‘dominator’ system is the ‘partnership’ or ‘gylanic’ (mentioned in this podcast) system. So it is interesting to hear Terrence say that there is no pharmacological evidence against cannabis use (except for CO exposure) but there is a huge backlash agianst it from our male dominated culture. To put into other words, alcohol and caffiene could probably be viewed as male drugs and cannabis is a female drug. Where does that leave the fungus amoung us?

    Thank you Terence and Lorenzo. First off, I am a guy. Secondly I love Terence’s comment about the needs of growers to align themselves to the feminizing aspects of cannabis’ influence. The very nature of the cultivation process is to weed out the males which aid in the production of an inferior medicinal product. This is the adoration and honoring of a feminine spirit. Lakota Sioux women would weed out the male elders from the ‘governmental’ ruling council who did not hold the WHOLE tribe (including the women and children) in their perspective when weighing the consequences of the council elders’ actions/decisions. Thirdly, I loved Terence’s connection between the icaros of Ayahuascaros, and for what hemp is used as a marketable asset: the phloem of the plant itself makes one of the finest fibers of the natural world which can be twined or woven. This can be seen visually in the form of cloth, which the Peruvian Shipibo natives weave their songs into, their stories of life are visually represented in the form on the cloth. Think of the implications symbolically: the phloem carries the nutrients from the roots to the rest of the plant for its life, its survival.

    The very standard that replaced hemp oil with petroleum was a turning point in our history which was marked by Industrialism peaking, Empire expanding, and consumerism becoming a global phenomenon. The effects of this process gave witness to a middle class who willingly gave away their life savings for the latest and greatest gadgets; saw an industrial pollution quotient skyrocket just for the scourge of the petroleum extraction and transportation not to mention refinement; provided a new class of elitest middlemen who were willing to pollute for profit / residual income at the expense of every living thing in the world. It redefined how one views land, much like the precious metals and stones have done for centuries: people view the land not for what is on it and its majesty, but for what is under it (opportunistic). I dare say that with California leading the horse team, the taxation base from medicinal cannabis would prove to be a legitimate financial recovery from a historical hangover. Think of the potential paper that is being discarded by individual growers who have no financial remuneration for the stems and stalks which gave rise to the buds from which they profit. Decriminalization would shake off tons of unnecessary waste of lives in the legal system, pool resources for conservation, educate and inform the public of the misinformation campaign waged against this plant and it’s protectors, and make some really nervous, anxious people a little less so without the need of a pharmacist or psychiatrist middleman. THC plugs the anandamide receptors in the brain, putting the individual in a much more pleasurable disposition.

    If people complain that it makes them lazy, it is merely accentuating an aspect of that persons’ personality. The plant doesn’t “make” you do anything,,, other than make you hungry;-). It won’t make you eat, you have to do that yourself much like making yourself lazy. That all happens one decision at a time.

    Had no idea I would be writing a book here. This one struck a nerve. Thanks for the forum.

    That was really amazing for me to hear, because I use marijuana in exactly the same way terrence does, and I’ve never met or heard about anybody who uses it in the same way before. Incredible. Too bad it doesn’t give me superhuman verbal abilities! In any case I wonder if

    There is a point in the trialogue where Ralph responds to Terence and says that he believes that the experiences he describes with Cannabis are not “typical” but then he says something, and I can’t make it out: I believe it’s “and most of the things you described I would say are typical of my experience personally,” where Rupert adds either “and mine” or “nor mine…” Can anyone make this out? Are they saying that they too have those experiences, or that T. is the one that is atypical, even from them? Thanks!

    I took it to mean that (like me) they hadn’t seen the Machine Elves and some of the other things he described. However, I now think that my experiences may have been more like his than I first thought, but that we were using COMPLETELY different metaphors to describe them. Ultimately, we are trying to put into words something that is actually beyond words, hence the confusion … at least that’s my two cents.

Comments are closed.