Salon2 032 – “Ben Stewart’s Wild Ride”

5 Comments

1. What I really long for in listening here is precise and honest information and ideas that address questions around what psychedelics and the psychedelic experience is all about and why it is important. Whether we like it or not, this field is a marketplace that relies on communication skills and credentials. I am not opposed to writers, film makers, people running psychedelic experiences in Peru, research doctors. But there should also be some skepticism. In my view, this was too general. I am directing this to Lex, who I like a lot. I want psychedelic journalism to have some of the bite of investigative journalism, to ask uncomfortable questions and play the devil’s advocate enough to present the questions and misgivings that the audience might have. . I watched one and a half of Ben Stewart’s films and think it would be hard to watch his work without serious questions -for example how to implement the kind of legal changes that would more properly limit government and corporate power. What is the proper basis for law?

   My intention is only to improve the quality of the salon. One thing that annoyed me with Terrence was the lack of any strong disagreement in his audiences to anything he said during the question & answer time. Did this really never happen? I am not talking about being rude or insulting, but respectful disagreement and probing questions. If we ask these questions of ourselves, and I feel that has been one of the roles of psychedelics in my experience, then we should be able to ask each other.

   It is not in any way just disagreement I want but just more what do you mean by that, can you give an example ,what does that tell you, kinds of probes.
   I doubt I have said this very well and it may not be useful but maybe it will.

   [COMMENT by Lorenzo: Regarding Terence McKenna’s talks, IMO you are correct in saying that his audience very rarely challenged him in person. It did happen, but not very often, and Terence usually put them down in such a way that no one else felt brave enough to challenge him (including me). The best challenge of his thinking came in one of the Trialogues with Ralph Abraham and Rupert Sheldrake. Both of them really took him on and directly challenged some of the things that he was saying. I can’t remember the exact episode, but perhaps one of our fellow saloners can point it out here in these comments.]

2. Hmm, was the above comment written by a person or a robot? Seems like a random compilation of sentences? In any case not clear at all what ‘you’ are trying to communicate (if anything). Lorenzo, will you moderate?

   • The core idea is pretty basic. Good interviews require probing questions, including questions where the interviewer plays the role of skeptical audience.
     I was trying to point to reasons why that would have improved this interview.

3. My bullshit filters flashed alarmingly while I listened to what, and how, Ben Stewart pushed his shtick, which in the end felt inauthentic and shallow. So what. There are lots of Tony Robbins clones around, bleeding the gullible and the ones who want to believe in something. It’s not about the marketplace – it’s about humans being and learning.

4. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Even of this guy has a huge influence on his associates, he just still does not matter a fuck to me. This does.https://youtu.be/OlBWHhugIzI These people are in a realm of experience your super-expensive therapeutic massage never will achieve.
   Look. I’m your friend and I want to make my views available. But that’s it. Can you spell coincidencia-oppositorum

Comments are closed.