what's happened to Michael Hoffman from egodeath?

[maxfreakout]

Michael Hoffman has resumed his prolific daily posting in the ego death group at yahoo after several years absence:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/messages

 

[jebus]

(i know this is an old threat. i just registered and can't seem to be able to do a new thread, so i put it here.)

to put it bluntly: i think michael hoffman has lost it. i used to follow his postings for years and was quite a believer in his ideas. the years past and when i now look back on his EGODEATH-THEORY THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD i can only see a disturbed mind, someone deeply narcisstic.
His most recent postings about his "latest most revolutionary insights" (snake tree worldline) i find to be most indicative of a sad state of mind. The video he put online concerning his dramatic insight does not make me feel any better.

I always looked up to him, he was on the cutting edge regarding psychedelic/religious philosophy - or so i thought.
I rechecked some of his writings and they often seem extremely megalomaniac - and I don't use this word lightly here.

So what is this post about?
The last thing i want to do, is any kind of mockery. No, I truely am very interested on what your thoughts on Michael are. I have had email contact with him a long time ago, tried to reach him again per mail but with no luck.
Also: Where is he now? He always wanted to write a book to make his insights more public / accessable, this never happend as far as I know.


To all of you: In all your pursuits: Remember to stay grounded.

 

[Psyche101]

I came across Michael Hoffman's writings about 2 years ago, and i must say it has very much changed the way i think about psychedelics even though im not sure i fully understand it, so it is interesting to see a thread here about it i look forward to reading through it and catching up.

But please go into more detail about why you think he has lost it? At what point do you think this happened? The reason i ask is because i dont see any point at which his writing style changed, he writes pretty much the same way now that he has always written. So it sounds more like you are saying that your perspective of his writing has changed recently, instead of saying that him and his writing changed recently. For example, the whole snake vs tree shaped worldline idea that he has written (and made a video) about follows along exactly the same lines that his theory of myth has always followed, it's about the relationship between personal self-control and timeless fatedness, or freewill and determinism. The branching tree shaped worldline represents free will, the snake shaped worldline represents determinism. Why do you think this indicates a sad state of mind? He seems to be just further clarifying his earlier work, making his theories more compact and convenient like "tree versus snake".

I do agree that the video was rubbish, the chalkboard he kept pointing to was out of focus and impossible to read the small writing. But the tree vs snake concept is amazing imo.

I dont think he needs to write a book, it would be a waste of time because his websites are already fully accessible for free to the whole world, and they contain all the information that is needed.

I dont think the theory will change the world particularly, but then did he ever say he thought it would? The point isnt to change the world, it is only trying to accurately model and explain the ego death experience. I think anyone might be a bit megalomaniac if they had figured out the secret meaning of religion!

 

[jebus]

But please go into more detail about why you think he has lost it? At what point do you think this happened? The reason i ask is because i dont see any point at which his writing style changed, he writes pretty much the same way now that he has always written. So it sounds more like you are saying that your perspective of his writing has changed recently, instead of saying that him and his writing changed recently.

This is true. I was addicted to painkillers for may years. I sobered up and since then much revised my take on life. You are absolutely right: Hoffmans writing style did not change much over time, its my take on it that differs.

Re "lost it": Well, his writings very much have this theme going on, that conventional scholars are dimwits, conventional wisdom is useless, the only salvation lies in ... WHAT actually? Accepting determinism? Too bad you just cannot do it, if it has not been timelessly decided that you HAVE to do it. See, now this whole timeless determinism, block universe talk seems rather empty to me. This whole theory seems like a gigantic effort, with very little result. Very little to grasp. And it seems much too reductionistic to me. Every religous riddle can supposedly be solved by the idea of timeless determinism. The whole theory and the way he words it is so extreme. Michael paints himself as being a saint (he literally used this word to conclude a posting) of some kind and you know... The theory, when viewed from a distance, sounds much less important than when being under the spell of the words Michael uses. I know his posts can have a very strong impact on a reader. In Hoffman's own words - you get infected by the nofreewill virus.

seems to be just further clarifying his earlier work, making his theories more compact and convenient like "tree versus snake".

He seems to go overboard though. He tries to reduce everything to being a clue or secret message stating the importance of the rule of timeless determinism.

I do agree that the video was rubbish,

He seems overly agitated. Like his explainations contain the Last Revelation.
The thing is : Prior to my revisions in thinking, his bizarre excitation convinced me fruther that he had a BIG truth all the world was waiting to hear.

I think anyone might be a bit megalomaniac if they had figured out the secret meaning of religion!

Religion has a (one) secret meaning? This seems way to simplistic and also quite paranoid.
That is how i see it now. Before I was a fervent believer of Michael's rants.
(I wanted to use the word posts, but the fact of the matter is: Many of his write ups border on being a rant, and even more are rants. I didnt't want to use the word, because i put so much faith once in all things egodeath determinism.
It feels very harsh to view it for what i see it now:
A strange man, proclaiming on the internet, he discovered the biggest secret of all time.

Michael is so convinced that he is right and (close to everybody else) is wrong, that, well... maybe, just maybe, it is the other way arround.

Too make a long story short, I quote Michael in order to why I think he should not taken seriously by anyone:

One interesting approach is a presentation "Pros and Cons of Ego Death". First, you have to sacrifice your firstborn child and deny that Jesus died on the cross. In return, you get to be a metaphysical slave and helpless puppet rescued by an impossible miracle. Good news: In the Gospel of John, turning water into wine, water of divine life flowing from the belly, means drinking mushroom urine. By the way, all this leads to the conclusion that Jesus is heroin. Thank you and good night.

 

[Psyche101]

Your criticisms seem to be more about Michael Hoffman himself and his attitude and writing style, and not about the details of the actual ego death theory. You dont say anything particularly strong against the theory, but you say plenty against the man and his style.

I personally dont share your opinion about the theory, but i feel i am only recently becoming competent in understanding it so maybe one day in the future i will feel different about it, if that is my eternal fate lol.

As far as i can tell, Hoffman has cracked it, he has translated God's eternal divine revelation into plain English, all religion is really about tripping-out on entheogens and experiencing death and rebirth (which is the discovery of timeless determinism). All religious symbols (such as the symbol of the Godman/King nailed to the crucifix) really point to intense entheogenic experiences.

So it is very fitting that he should call himself 'archangel Michael' or a prophet, a saint, a mystic etc. He is the highest human intellect, the man who is closest to God, because he worked out the theory of cybernetic ego transcendence. The mainstream establishment scholars in the official published literature are all clueless and dimwitted about the significance of the altered state.

A big part of my personal journey of understanding has been with psychedelics, ive had some heavenly and some hellish experiences on LSD, including ego death and rebirth, and that is the core subject matter of the ego death theory, ie control loss (cybernetic instability and breakdown) in the psychedelic state. So im curious about how your painkiller addiction is connected to your feelings about egodeath theory (like what do you mean you revised your view on life?), Hoffman has talked about how Alan Watts' alcoholism is likely connected to his philosophical enlightenment, because addiction is an issue centrally related to loss of personal self-control, same as tripping out and experiencing ego death.

 

[jebus]

Your criticisms seem to be more about Michael Hoffman himself and his attitude and writing style, and not about the details of the actual ego death theory. You dont say anything particularly strong against the theory, but you say plenty against the man and his style.

I personally dont share your opinion about the theory, but i feel i am only recently becoming competent in understanding it so maybe one day in the future i will feel different about it, if that is my eternal fate lol.

As far as i can tell, Hoffman has cracked it, he has translated God's eternal divine revelation into plain English, all religion is really about tripping-out on entheogens and experiencing death and rebirth (which is the discovery of timeless determinism). All religious symbols (such as the symbol of the Godman/King nailed to the crucifix) really point to intense entheogenic experiences.

So it is very fitting that he should call himself 'archangel Michael' or a prophet, a saint, a mystic etc. He is the highest human intellect, the man who is closest to God, because he worked out the theory of cybernetic ego transcendence. The mainstream establishment scholars in the official published literature are all clueless and dimwitted about the significance of the altered state.

A big part of my personal journey of understanding has been with psychedelics, ive had some heavenly and some hellish experiences on LSD, including ego death and rebirth, and that is the core subject matter of the ego death theory, ie control loss (cybernetic instability and breakdown) in the psychedelic state. So im curious about how your painkiller addiction is connected to your feelings about egodeath theory (like what do you mean you revised your view on life?), Hoffman has talked about how Alan Watts' alcoholism is likely connected to his philosophical enlightenment, because addiction is an issue centrally related to loss of personal self-control, same as tripping out and experiencing ego death.

Yes and no. Sure i talked much about Micheal but given the extremety of the theory (the maximal entheogen theory), i think it is not irrelevant who"s behind it.
Especially since its rather close to a conspirational theory with an insider (Michael and a few select others) and the dumb masses (unitiated scholars).

Another thing which feels me with great doubt are his findings of secret meanings in music.

 

[Psyche101]

Yes and no. Sure i talked much about Micheal but given the extremety of the theory (the maximal entheogen theory), i think it is not irrelevant who"s behind it.
Especially since its rather close to a conspirational theory with an insider (Michael and a few select others) and the dumb masses (unitiated scholars).

Another thing which feels me with great doubt are his findings of secret meanings in music.

So far there isnt much substance to your criticism, please could you spell out exactly what you find objectionable about the aspects of the ego death theory that you mention? like Hoffman's theory of Rock song lyrics, or the maximal entheogen theory of religion? Hoffman's central point about the mainstream official scholars is that they completely fail to address the significance of the altered state experiences.

I cannot understand how your view of the theory could have changed, if you used to find value in the maximal entheogen theory of religion, then why do you dismiss its value now? And how is your addiction issues connected to your feelings about ego death theory? Do you interpret addiction as self control struggle per Hoffman?

There is an intellectual pathway that begins with reading the ego death theory and absorbing its central structure - the relationship between self-control, timeless fatedness, psychedelic tripping and finally metaphor. Then the next step on the pathway is to learn to effectively communicate the theory to other people. Im not sure how far ive progressed along the ego death pathway so it would be interesting to see if we can relate to each other about where we disagree.

For example what do you think about Hoffman's idea that the symbol of the Godman Jesus nailed to the cross describes psychedelic ego death/rebirth? Personally i find that idea to be profoundly plausible and resonant with my own personal experiences.

So there are two distinct layers of religion, the exoteric clueless outsiders who are unable to recognise the altered state allusions in the religious symbols/stories and the esoteric psychedelic insiders who can easily recognise all religious symbols/stories as metaphorical references to the altered state experiences, in particular the experience of ego death and rebirth. Hoffman has explained (or modelled) the meaning of the religious symbols and the ego death experience in terms of cybernetic instability and breakdown of the 'ego' self-control mechanism when it perceives timeless determinism in the intense altered state

 

[jebus]

I cannot understand how your view of the theory could have changed, if you used to find value in the maximal entheogen theory of religion, then why do you dismiss its value now? And how is your addiction issues connected to your feelings about ego death theory? Do you interpret addiction as self control struggle per Hoffman?

Of course addiction is centrally a problem of (lack of ) self control. The brain gets "hijacked" basically and i was left with an illusion of control when in truth i had zero control over my life anymore.
It's a hallmark of addiction that the sufferer is not aware of the hole he's in. He think he's got his life still under control but alas - he is run by his addiction.

There is an intellectual pathway that begins with reading the ego death theory and absorbing its central structure - the relationship between self-control, timeless fatedness, psychedelic tripping and finally metaphor. Then the next step on the pathway is to learn to effectively communicate the theory to other people. Im not sure how far ive progressed along the ego death pathway so it would be interesting to see if we can relate to each other about where we disagree.

I guess that's ok, i just want to warn you how much you dive into that theory and begin to belive, ie. handle it as fact vs. a theorem.

For example what do you think about Hoffman's idea that the symbol of the Godman Jesus nailed to the cross describes psychedelic ego death/rebirth? Personally i find that idea to be profoundly plausible and resonant with my own personal experiences.

Me too. Maybe, just maybe, this connection is just circumstance.
The thing is: If you want things to mean something, and you use enough time thinking about it, you will see connections. Its just a matter of time.
This can be a dangerous game, especially if one has the tendency to socially isolate oneself.

So there are two distinct layers of religion, the exoteric clueless outsiders who are unable to recognise the altered state allusions in the religious symbols/stories and the esoteric psychedelic insiders who can easily recognise all religious symbols/stories as metaphorical references to the altered state experiences, in particular the experience of ego death and rebirth. Hoffman has explained (or modelled) the meaning of the religious symbols and the ego death experience in terms of cybernetic instability and breakdown of the 'ego' self-control mechanism when it perceives timeless determinism in the intense altered state

Maybe, maybe not. I think that www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SNFo5mdms (maybe logic) is a good way of thinking.

 

[Finarfin]

I think it, s important to remember that not everybody believes in god. I know that god is very populair in the usa and americans talk a lot about jezus gawd and the bible. I think it, s no coincedence that north americans came up with the term entheogen.
Seems like americans sometimes forget that words like god jezus and the bible seem to be more important in the usa then in other parts of the world

Personally i do not like the term entheogens because it, s about the god within.
I Would rather like to call them psychedelics. Not everybodu believes in god, but everybody has a psyche.


I have a lot of problems with hoffman, s theory. I think he is full off the well known substance.
Psychedelics should be open to everybody without dogma, s theory, s god jezus or religion.

I think religious freedom to take psychedelics as a sacrement is the wrong way to go. I think everybody should have the freedom to take psychedelics and not only the religious folks.
There should be place for shamanic practice or therapeutic practice with psychedelics.

I have no problems with people using psychedelics as sacrament.
At the moment only members of (christian) churches are allowed to use psychedelic plants in there rituals.
I read there now also is a islamic sufi sect now who is allowed to use ayahuasca.
My point is that i do not think you need to be member of a sect or church to use psychedelics. You do not need to use psychedelics as a sacrament.
Traditional people use it as a medicin. Therapeuts use it in a therapautic way. The religious way is only one path or way to use psychedelics but there are many more.

At the place where i did a ayahuasca ceremony, nobody talked about god or jezus. There was no dogma or theory and there was not a lot of talking at all. It was not about religion it was all about healing. People where free to experience there trip without somebody telling them what to think or what to believe.

 

[Finarfin]

I do not believe in ego or ego death. I do not believe in god or religion
It are all labels nothing more. I explain this in the thread i openend about enligthenment awakening and ego death.

I think michael hoffman is trying to be a priest and is giving you (preaching to you) answers. I think his followers like out friemd max freakout (who i love and like for his amazing podcast and for who he is) arr agressively trying to convert other people to believe in god and ego and ego death. They are trying to convert people to this believe in ego and ego death. They do not realise it,s not real, it,s only a label.

 

[Demahdi]

A label to describe an experience, no?