hello,

I have been looking over Michael Hoffman's website http://www.egodeath.com and notice that it is just too 2007 which is over 2 years ago now. I tried to find out what he is currently doing but cannot find out. So I am wondering if anyone knows here?

I was shocked to find that author of The Alphabet versus the Goddess had died---Seems often you look away for a while and someone's died!
I hope not same for Michael Hoffman, but one of reasons I am curious

I don't know.
I am not a big fan of his work. He did some good research, but he also had some ideas that I could not get behind.

I don't know what happend to him

He did made some significant contributions with some of his passages from which I feel I learnt a lot. The website has been up like that for quite some time yes, but does that make the information old fashioned? Thought not. Something that is known to be just too [insert year here] is typically something for communities with monkey's, but hey, copying phrases slips in without too much of our notice eh? See it with the whole "epic" internet hype.

No idea what Micheal Hofmann is up to, but his work has been appreciated. Moving on from putting things into perspective through a language code has it's limitations since there comes a point that one understands it all without having to go through an internal dialogue. And he has written ample information. Over-analysing in the long term has been known to be the death blow for more than one amoung the psychedelic/entheogenic culture.

Yes I know what you mean.
I find his words very clonky and hardly poetic

And his idea of a static determinism thingy doesn't appeal.

I found a very good critique of his work, but I dont want to overdo the negative. I admire his unique take, but not his insistance that ONLY his theory is the truth/right way--That like over-analytical ness is also a big no no

I think his insistence that only his theory is the right one, is what I couldn't get behind.

I discovered his website some weeks ago.

I was strucked when reading his analysis of Rush lyrics. I have been a fan of this band for a couple of years and never glimpsed the LSD/ego death related signification of their lyrics.

I have no idea of what he has became since 2007 though.

Hoffman has been on sabbatical since 2007, i vaguely remember him saying he would return to work on ego death theory in 2009 but it hasnt happened yet, hopefully some time soon he will start posting the ego death yahoo group (which is well worth reading as well as his main website, lots of useful information there)

he definitly isnt dead

magickmumu schreef:I think his insistence that only his theory is the right one, is what I couldn't get behind.

he has never made any such 'insistence', quite the opposite he has specifically said that his analytical/intellectual approach is vital but also not the only approach to finding the truth

it's strange how the only critisism of his work that appears on this thread is directed at something he never said

zezt schreef:I find his words very clonky and hardly poetic[

he isnt trying to be poetic, he is trying to be absolutely precise, clear, explicit honest etc and i dont think there are any psychedelic writers who have explained the psychedelic experience as clearly as him

zezt schreef:And his idea of a static determinism thingy doesn't appeal.

what do you mean 'doesnt appeal'?

the model of timeless determinism (which isnt 'his', he takes it from Rudy Rucker) is meant to explain the experience of psychedelic death and rebirth, you feel as if you 'die' (or go permanently crazy) when you trip too hard because consciousness is raised above the temporal stream of events so that you perceive time as if it were a static block instead of (the usual experience way time is perceived) as a flowing stream of events

Hey max. I forgot to mention that I did listen to your podcast, after I had been looking for informations about M. Hoffman.

Nice interview !

MelloTrip schreef:Hey max. I forgot to mention that I did listen to your podcast, after I had been looking for informations about M. Hoffman.

Nice interview !

Thanx!

Ive been thinking maybe i should ask him to do another interview for Psychonautica, it would be an excuse to find out exactly what he is up to, if anyone can suggest some questions i could put to him that would be much appreciated

Brugmansia schreef: The website has been up like that for quite some time yes, but does that make the information old fashioned?

egodeath.com is probably the most advanced piece of writing in the world, it is years ahead of the rest of psychedelic academia, it is the start of a 'conceptual revolution'

It's unambiguous for sure, I share your idea with egodeath.com being the most ahead of all. I do believe its concepts of entheogens will somehow strike within our future society since we'll soon shift ourselve to a living world which faces hollowness and predictability so much that it leads to a mental devastation. With soon, I meant a few centuries from now on. I might not have been comprehensible enough in my last post perhaps, since topicstarter wondered about M. Hofmann, I just assumed that he may have moved on (not from the belief in his egodeath theory, just having focus for other pursuits/projects/works) because he felt he had written sufficient and ample information already. Theories don't need to be all time extended to be accurate, in fact, it often makes them less concrete than before.

No need for an update on egodeath.com, the size of documentation is just perfect for what it is. It's completely luminous.

I imagine how God would react if he was still here, "Micheal Hofmann, who the fuck is he? An emperor? Someone who wants a million licks on his shoes?", oh dear, God, Ahua and CM should be put back in here some day.

Something doesn't appeal about the idea--if I have him correct--that there is a deterministic dimension where our actions are kind of like known

I know Michael is very influenced by Alan Watts, who I have read quite a bit, and from what I dig of Alan's take on the timeless it is not NOT being in control but of discovering spontaniety, and purposeless

I loved Watts because of his poetic way of communicating, hence Michael's more computer-like metaphors dont do it for me so much, though I really love how he sees the utter significance of entheogenic experience as being central in myth, fairytale, religion, philosophy etc and how 'meditation' is nowhere as potent a source of inspiration

So Max, can you summarize what he is saying for you and why it is so important please? In YOUR style?

i think it starts with the term egodeath which is the first term which can be misleading.... for me it's all about the not-identification with the ego and not about it dying, however the process the ego can undergo after "psychonautic lucidity", is metaphorically not too badly described by the term "death". death always represents change.

i wonder if i can contribute more when i actually have read a text on that website...

zezt schreef:Something doesn't appeal about the idea--if I have him correct--that there is a deterministic dimension where our actions are kind of like known

No that isnt what the theory is saying, ego death theory isnt a treatise of metaphysics, it is primarily a cognitive phenomenological model of the ego death experience. So it isnt saying which dimensions exist or dont exist, rather it is saying what happens on the cognitive level in the deep 'life-changing' psychedelic experience, when a person experiences dying then being reborn with a new transformed level of consciousness. The idea of timeless determinism is intended to model the ego death experience, not to state some 'fact' about the universe

zezt schreef:I know Michael is very influenced by Alan Watts, who I have read quite a bit, and from what I dig of Alan's take on the timeless it is not NOT being in control but of discovering spontaniety, and purposeless

Yes the theory is based very heavily on one particular essay from Watts called something like 'zen and self control' from the book 'this is it', Hoffman holds that one essay on very high regard. Watts says in that paper that 'self-control' is paradoxically impossible, like walking along by picking up each foot with your hands and moving it, or making a car move forwards by sitting inside and pushing the dashboard. The 'self-controller' entity is extraneous, unnecessary and ultimately impossible

Ego death theory is based around that central insight of Watt's, the ego defined as the 'self-controlling homunculus' which sits inside the head and steers the person's thoughts and actions, is a logical paradox. In the ego death experience the paradoxical nature of ego becomes intensely problematic, resulting in schizophrenic disintegration and the permanent cessation of ego-identification

zezt schreef:I loved Watts because of his poetic way of communicating, hence Michael's more computer-like metaphors dont do it for me so much, though I really love how he sees the utter significance of entheogenic experience as being central in myth, fairytale, religion, philosophy etc and how 'meditation' is nowhere as potent a source of inspiration

Hoffman has stated that his aim is to theorise in a clear explicit and non-poetic way in order to unambiguously convey the ego death insights. Poetic aphorisms fail to be explicit and unambiguous, so he avoids using them in favour of absolutely clear non-metaphorical language. The 'computer' comparison is not meant to be understood metaphorically but rather literally, the human mind IS a computer, - ie an information processor. Just like all computational systems, the human mind is vulnerable to Gödelian logical incompleteness, and that is the cause of ego death.

Meditation is not a valid means of religious mental transformation because it does not reliably deliver the intense mystical/religious state of consciousness. Religion and mythology all consist of collections of metaphors for religious mental transformation, ego death theory is the first ever non-metaphorical description of this transformation