Hello everybody
This post is in part to answer some questions that have come up
here, and to introduce into our conversations the concept of reductionist
thinking and how it has inherent flaws and has a built in limiter as
to what it can and can not prove.
Albert Einstein, the famous American theoretical physicist once said
that, "Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is
limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world......
stimulating progress, or giving birth to evolution......
Reductionist scientific thinking only can base its ideas on what it
thinks it has known and discovered in the past. It is very bad at
coming to new information and does so kicking and screaming along the
way, shooting arrows in the backs of pioneers who would question the
established status quo of ideas. History has proved this time and
time again. Hold on, I must pluck another one of those arrows from my
back side as I speak. :-)
Reductionist thinking looks very closely at the infinitesimally small
pieces, so closely that the bigger picture is never seen.
Reductionist thinking can be said to be linear or vertically stacked
knowledge, as opposed to lateral thinking, the kind which can connect
the dots of a previously unrecognizable picture.
Let us apply these considerations to our current questions at hand
regarding Amanita muscaria and Don Teeter's work. If what we have
here is a previously unidentified form of growth, possibly even a
simple form of a higher fungi, and a previously unknown (to lab techs)
method of cultivating Amanita muscaria, then all the testing in the
world done to ID it according to what is already known will prove to
be of no avail.
Because of direct first hand experimentation by many people who have
done Don's experiments, it is VERY obvious that we are dealing with
something not very text book as far as its growth patterns and it is
directly tied to exposure to Amanita muscaria tissue. Bio-assays of
this material have confirmed for multitudes of people that it is or is
very much similar to Amanita muscaria in its effects.
To quote Don Teeter, "Mycology already has
such a bad record identifying polymorphic Basidiomycetes mycelium that
even if the mycelium produced by A muscaria was identified
microscopically as a simple fungus by the best lab in the world, it
still would prove nothing, since that named simple fungus could
actually be a misidentified polymorph of A muscaria. Would you spend
any money on microscopic tests of the A muscaria cultures, knowing the
background of misidentification already present in the science?"
Taking this one step further. Even if a positive ID was made, this
proves nothing regarding the question of if the ancients were using
Amanita muscaria, and cultivating this secondary fungus for its life
and health and spiritual properties. That is the big picture that the
reductionist line of inquisition cannot even address. That is the
meat of what this group is about and what Don's work expounds on.
That is what others now can recreate due to Don Teeters publishing
these rediscovered ideas and methods for all to see and do follow up
on and draw their own conclusions about.
We are sharing information here that we believe to be ground breaking.
We encourage others to participate in this endeavor. We have no need
to prove a, b, or c point according to any reductionistic line of
inquiry, as I am more focused more upon the bigger picture of what is
going on here and its' striking and uncanny similarities to the Gods
described in ancient text. These are questions a lab tech really has
no interest in at all and cannot answer for us, no matter how much
money we send them.
If anybody else wishes to have this or that testing done, nobody has
ever tried to stop them, and in fact it has been encouraged time and
time again, but to insist it is my responsibility to do so, as has been
stated in the Yahoo group I manage on this topic is nonsense. My
focus is broader at this time as it has been since this
group was founded.
Sincerely
Vince