After a few good psychedelic experiences, we can all dream up theories about the nature of reality, the nature of existence, and the nature of “God”. (I’m guilty of this myself.) But positing a theory or an idea is one thing, claiming to know the “truth” is another.

It’s true that Mr. Ball might be right. It’s also true that any of the other 147,322,409 theories about the nature of existence might be right. It’s much more likely that none of us are right – that the "ultimate" nature of existence is beyond human comprehension. I accept that. Most members of this forum accept that. But Mr. Ball does not.

He does seem very confident in his theories.. He does authentically believe them. It isn't like he is doing this for fame or money. His goal is to help people reach an authentic state of being.. and I respect that. Authenticity IS what we should all be striving for.

I don't know him personally, but I did follow his podcasts and read one of his books.. I haven't gotten any bad vibes.. but that is just me. I think it is possible that this man IS authentic (can't say for sure because I don't know him on a personal level).

During the course of the podcasts I actually noticed a transormation with how he was speaking. Some time after he interviews James Oroc he has some 5-meo DMT experiences. He supposedly experienced himself as God, and had an energetic transformation. You can notice in the podcasts that he speaks more confidently and with a deeper tone after the experiences.

If this guy is actually authentic with himself, I think his ideas are at least worth looking into. "Being Human" is a very unique book to me.

Authenticity without humility doesn’t have much value.

I cannot speak for Martin on any of this, so I sent him a message on facebook with some of your responses. I am interested in reading his response. I'll post it once it comes in.

How can you know his motives and goals when you've never even met him? Why are you so dead certain about him?

have you read ANYTHING pandora posted, or anything from Ball's convo posted in that other thread? It sounds like your just reading what you want from it, and sweeping the rest under the rug. And you can't just disregard the criticism because according to your paradigm they all come from peoples "lower selves".

The thing that blows my mind is how he clearly stated many times that he has The Absolute Undebatable Truth (basically, he's channeling god) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is deluded, and doesn't even deserve a response (which is strange since, as you said, his goal is "to help people reach an authentic state of being"; whatever that means). So much for a help, i guess he will only help if you buy his stuff. All while refusing to have any discussion with the 100+ people who added some constructive criticism to his articles, since, as he said, "their just deluded". If he really was authentic, and interested in getting people to understand his theories, then don't you think he'd actually RESPOND to those who replied to his articles? Or the response to it posted by peter meyer?

And since when is a deepening of the voice a sign of anything but puberty?! He only deepend his voice after he slandered mckenna for having a high pitched voice-which he said was a sign of "not speaking from the heart"; basically a diagnosis out of thin air. if you believe in that deep voice crock of shit-what won't you believe? I'm not saying anymore on the inaccuracy of his understanding of mckenna, because if you don't see it then your probably just not that familiar with his stuff-since most of it is outright lies, or as if the man watched a few youtube videos and then began writing..

Oh god, again?! oh man come on, we already know what he will say

As long as you're shuttling messages to him, can you inquire how offering "healing sessions" at $200 a pop (as he actually does on his website) coalesces either with altruism or a healthy respect for the medicine? Because while reducing the experience to monetary exchange doesn't automatically make him an imposter, it certainly calls into question his motives - at least in my estimation.

And as long as we're on the subject, Cloud... how do you reconcile this with your faith in the man and his intentions? How can you be down with this and the Nexus simultaneously? I mean, either you feel that divinity for sale is acceptable, or you don't. If you do, you should set up shop; you're as qualified a "healer" as anyone. If not, your beliefs are in line with ours; this thing doesn't mix with money.

Hitler was also authentic. Becoming authentic is dangerous. It's better to stay in the cardboard world, until we find out how to be authentic without doing harm to other living beings.

Ok so I sent some of your responses to him, and I just got a message back.

-Martin-

None of these comments really have much substance to them, so there isn't much for me to genuinely comment on. They basically all take the route of attacking the messenger rather than looking carefully at the message, or how the messenger came to know the message. In other words, they just want to criticize who/what they think "Martin" is without looking at anything I've said or done. That puts these responses into the category of egoic statements that aren't really engaged in genuine discussion or consideration of ideas. They are platitudes that are not backed up by any kind of argument or discussion. With that said, I'm copying the comments below with specific responses.

"After a few good psychedelic experiences, we can all dream up theories about the nature of reality, the nature of existence, and the nature of “God”. (I’m guilty of this myself.) But positing a theory or an idea is one thing, claiming to know the “truth” is another."

While this is true, this is a vapid and insubstantial response to my sharing of the entheological paradigm. Just because others, the writer of this comment included, have come up with half-baked ideas about the nature of reality, it doesn’t mean that mine are as well. There is not a single consideration for even one detail of what I’ve shared here, so this critique is entirely lacking substance. It is dismissive without looking at the information that is available. I’ve gone through a lot of trouble to make my ideas available and accessible in ways that are easy to understand and communicate. If this writer thinks my ideas are so easy to dismiss, why not actually address even ONE idea? One cannot assess whether my ideas are true or not without addressing them directly.


"It’s true that Mr. Ball might be right. It’s also true that any of the other 147,322,409 theories about the nature of existence might be right. It’s much more likely that none of us are right – that the "ultimate" nature of existence is beyond human comprehension. I accept that. Most members of this forum accept that. But Mr. Ball does not."

It’s obvious that I don’t accept this platitude that the nature of ultimate reality is beyond human comprehension and this commenter does not bother to investigate why that is, or what I’ve claimed. As with the comment above, there is nothing specific here – just general comments without a single reference to anything specific. These commentators could stand to take a philosophy class or two and learn how to present intelligent arguments as just repeating beliefs does not count as making any kind of argument or intelligent discussion.

If someone wants to dismiss the entheological paradigm, then they are going to need to do better than this. What, precisely, does this commentator disagree with? What does this person think is actually wrong with what I’ve presented? Do they have a better explanation? Can they account for all the things that I can account for with the entheological paradigm in a way that is clearer and more concise and accurate? In science and philosophy, theories are argued based on their merits of what they can and cannot explain and how free they are from subjective beliefs and perspectives. Anyone wanting to legitimately dismiss the entheological paradigm will need to engage in that level of discourse – not just dismissing what I’ve shared without making a single relevant argument. It also requires that they actively try it out. The entheological paradigm comes with specific techniques and methods. One has to try these first before making any kind of determinative evaluation, at a minimum.


"Authenticity without humility doesn’t have much value."

According to whom? From where did this bit of wisdom come and what makes it true other than that the writer believes it? Ego statement through and through. What does this writer even mean by “authenticity” and “humility”? I’ve written and spoken a great deal about what it means to be authentic, and of the egoic nature of promoting ideas of "humility". Can this writer comment on what I’ve shared about this? Can they make a clear statement of why they are disagreeing with my definition of authenticity or humility? Is there any substance here, or just repeating worn-out beliefs that have no real basis in objective reality? This is vague and meaningless.



"so much arrogance from this guy its unbelieavable.

What does this writer mean by this? How, exactly, am I arrogant? What if everything I’m saying is 100% true? If so, can I still be arrogant for being true? Is that possible? Once again, there is nothing specific here.

"And how surprisingly creative, someone taking psychedelics and claiming to have found The Truth (and yes I tried 5-meo-dmt and dont agree with what he said, and no im not at all a mckenna fanboy )"

You see how this is going – once again, nothing specific. This writer wants to dismiss me for having claimed to have found the Truth without addressing a single thing specific about what I’ve shared. There is no argument here whatsoever. What does this writer mean that they’ve tried 5-MeO and disagrees with me? Disagrees in what way? About what? And how much experience does this person have here? Tried it once or twice? And if this person really wants to evaluate what I’ve said, how about trying what I’ve shared about working symmetrically and working with ones energy? How about actually trying the advice I’ve given and then evaluating its worth. Dismissing what I say without even attempting to put it into practice is not evaluating what I’ve said at all. Until someone actually tries what I’ve shared, they have no basis to comment as they are just repeating their personal egoic beliefs without any kind of empirical basis. Even if they’ve tried 5-MeO before, they would need to try it with my techniques and methods in order to actually begin to assess what I’ve said about it. Anything less is dishonest and not a genuine investigation. It’s lazy and egoic.

"I think Ball is jealous and egotistical. A man 10 years dead (McKenna) is still making his (Ball's) life work look like a shadow rather than the main object. . . . Also, I wasn't being facetious nor exaggerating when I said as far as I could tell his main focus was on getting paid, and getting laid by young, ethereal, beautiful women."

Yet again, not a single thing that is specific – just general, unfounded statements. And this writer’s comment on my “main focus?” Get real! This is just pathetic and not worthy of comment.

Look – when it comes down to it, I’ve offered a point-by-point, even a word-by-word critique of Terence and everything that he’s said about DMT, including the way he went about talking about it. Everything I presented was from the consistent and coherent perspective of the entheological paradigm, which is a complex, integrated analysis of the nature of reality. I developed this view from doing serious, transformative energetic work within myself where I fundamentally altered the way I am able to experience myself and the world around me. I am able to thoroughly explain and give details for any comment I make about others or about the nature of reality and it is consistent, thorough, and comprehensive. In other words, I can offer easily articulated support for any position that I take or express and ground my comments in observable facts. I don’t engage in speculation, metaphysics, or belief systems. Anyone who wants to legitimately critique me needs to deal with all of this – which not a single one of the comments given above do. So, they’ve all decided to superficially focus on the messenger (and don’t even do a good job there), rather than the message. These comments are superficial and vacuous.

They are also to be expected. Each comment here is reflective of ego-based reactions, show no articulation of logic, and present not a single piece of evidence for any of their so-called conclusions. That’s how egos work. They are not logical, rational, or grounded in reality. They choose their beliefs and then promote them without any substance or reason.

I know that what I present is challenging to virtually everyone, and that my way of presenting the entheological paradigm is challenging as well. It’s all about energy, however, and about authenticity. What I’m presenting is unique and my method of presenting is unique as well, and therefore bound to get peoples’ egos all wound up and reactive. There is nothing surprising about this. Just keep in mind that I’m determined to share the truth for the benefit and liberation of all humans and am not interested in wining a popularity contest or influencing people with my personality. My only concern is uncompromising Truth and Reality. What people think of me is not my concern. For those who are open and willing to look the truth in the face, it is obvious that what I am sharing is true and genuine, as are my methods of presenting. I’m a challenge, yes, but I’m also telling the truth.

---

There it is people, discuss.

(I wish Martin could be here himself to discuss)

I wish you'd addressed the money issue, but I can't imagine his response being any less annoying than the one above.

The bottom line is that this twat simply has no room in his head or heart for other peoples' ideas. Anything other than his own bloated musings are too threatening to even consider. And of course he won't come here to discuss - though he certainly could at anytime. You can bet your ass he's watching the thread though. More than anything he loves to be talked about.

...Are you actually serious?

Did you actually read what he said, or did you just read what you wanted? I thought he responded very intelligently.. and calling him a twat?..... really?

Why don't you debate some of his concepts like he suggests?.. What has he put forth that you don't agree with?..

What he is saying DOES make sense here.. I had more respect for you guys than that...

Why not have an intelligent debate, instead of calling the man names, and dismissing his work without actually touching on concepts that he has presented?.. Who looks worse here??

(I sent him the message before you posted the money question btw)

Alright. Well, how do YOU respond to it? How do YOU get YOUR head around the fact that this guy takes money for this? It runs contrary to the most basic tenet of the community you're a part of.

Questions below made after reading his website and the issues one can notice:

What direct proof apart from subjective experience does he has that 5-meo-dmt is superior and dmt comes a close second in terms of "seeing one's true nature"? What is the criteria? If its only subjective, then isnt it ultimately a belief just like any other? why is it more valuable than other opinions/beliefs he criticizes ?

Just check his website, it's all so general that its hardly a real theory nor original. The same "energies and we are the expressions of god and must align to the true nature of reality" that you hear in a billion places.

He over-uses the concept of energy and doesnt seem coherent with the physical implication of it. Energy has a form and is measurable. When he talks about consciousness with "higher energies" or all the other instances, energy in what form? What evidence does he have to back up what he is saying, how is this energy being measured?

What does he mean with love being manifested through the heart, lungs and vascular system? That seems like again an arbitrary evidence-less definition. What is love for him and why does he not consider it coming from our consciousness and therefore related to the brain?

Then again he talks all these claims "aligning with reality" but again what is reality and how can you tell when a person is aligned or not? What evidence does he have to show that a person is aligned ?

What about ego being an illusionary construct, does he consider himself free of ego all the time? and if not, is what makes him any better than anybody else? Can he measure ego? What evidence does he have that ego exist? Do indigenous people have ego even if they dont have the concept of ego?

Also what are the consequences of his thoughts to the dilemas that normal people have in normal lives? Appart from "buy my book and get energetically aligned", what do his theories really answer or help the world in?

This guy just doesn't get it !!

Its not about your message. It doesn't matter if you're right or not. Nobodies going to take you seriously because you come off as a holier than thou religious guru that is just out to take advantage of the naive. Like countless others before you.

DMT is ART!!

And Terrance was an Artist!

To me psychedelics is more about the irrational artistic beauty of life. I may find enlightenment and I may not, its not really my goal.

I really wish that Martin could be here himself to discuss, I don't want to be a middleman here.. I will send him more questions, but I'm going to also ask him to participate in the discussion..

@Mysmelf: I was just thinking the same thing. This guy has spent a lot of time on forums calling people names (before he was the person with the key to reality). If you have what you feel is an important message that needs to be spread, and you keep getting the message that you are a repellent, arrogant imbecile, you think you'd take a moment to reflect. Then perhaps attenuate your output so that it is more palatable. If people in the psychedelic community are reacting this way, how does he ever expect to reach the general public? I mean, if you hold the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and you are an egoless, compassionate being, you'd probably be doing everything possible to get on CNN. I'll bet this guy would say, that the world isn't ready for his message, and only he can judge who is ready for his truth by reading their energy (nuclear? kinetic? solar?) and the tone of their voice. And of course their ability to pay him $$$.

PROBLEM, NEKXIANS?????

My responses in blue.

"After a few good psychedelic experiences, we can all dream up theories about the nature of reality, the nature of existence, and the nature of “God”. (I’m guilty of this myself.) But positing a theory or an idea is one thing, claiming to know the “truth” is another."

While this is true, this is a vapid and insubstantial response to my sharing of the entheological paradigm. Just because others, the writer of this comment included, have come up with half-baked ideas about the nature of reality, it doesn’t mean that mine are as well. There is not a single consideration for even one detail of what I’ve shared here, so this critique is entirely lacking substance. It is dismissive without looking at the information that is available. I’ve gone through a lot of trouble to make my ideas available and accessible in ways that are easy to understand and communicate. If this writer thinks my ideas are so easy to dismiss, why not actually address even ONE idea? One cannot assess whether my ideas are true or not without addressing them directly.

Who is to say which ideas about the nature of reality are half-baked and which are not? Who among us is in a position to make such determinations? My intent is not to criticize or dismiss the entheological paradigm, but rather to point out that any theories or ideas that can’t be scientifically examined and tested, regardless of how detailed and compelling and well thought out they may be, cannot be proven to be true. They are all half-baked, including the entheological paradigm

"It’s true that Mr. Ball might be right. It’s also true that any of the other 147,322,409 theories about the nature of existence might be right. It’s much more likely that none of us are right – that the "ultimate" nature of existence is beyond human comprehension. I accept that. Most members of this forum accept that. But Mr. Ball does not."

It’s obvious that I don’t accept this platitude that the nature of ultimate reality is beyond human comprehension and this commenter does not bother to investigate why that is, or what I’ve claimed. As with the comment above, there is nothing specific here – just general comments without a single reference to anything specific. These commentators could stand to take a philosophy class or two and learn how to present intelligent arguments as just repeating beliefs does not count as making any kind of argument or intelligent discussion.

Since the human brain is a limited finite structure, and since the cognitive capacity of human beings is limited, it is both reasonable and logical to assume that there are, at least in theory, ideas and concepts whose understanding would require cognitive capacity exceeding that of human beings. This is not a platitude. Given the fact that there are many aspects of reality that are currently not understood by human beings, it is not unreasonable to deduce that the “ultimate” nature of reality is currently not understood.

Also, depending on the nature of “ultimate” reality, it might be impossible for human beings to ever learn about it, regardless of cognitive capacity. For example, if our reality is some sort of sophisticated computer simulation, then anything we experience would, at best, describe characteristics of the simulation. We would never have awareness of, be able to explain, describe, or understand the “simulator”.

If someone wants to dismiss the entheological paradigm, then they are going to need to do better than this. What, precisely, does this commentator disagree with? What does this person think is actually wrong with what I’ve presented? Do they have a better explanation? Can they account for all the things that I can account for with the entheological paradigm in a way that is clearer and more concise and accurate? In science and philosophy, theories are argued based on their merits of what they can and cannot explain and how free they are from subjective beliefs and perspectives. Anyone wanting to legitimately dismiss the entheological paradigm will need to engage in that level of discourse – not just dismissing what I’ve shared without making a single relevant argument. It also requires that they actively try it out. The entheological paradigm comes with specific techniques and methods. One has to try these first before making any kind of determinative evaluation, at a minimum.

I don’t know much at all about the entheological paradigm, but I assume it is not a scientific theory. I assume we won’t be seeing any articles in any scientific journals proving the validity of the claims it makes. The burden of proof is on the authors and proponents of a theory, and I have yet to see any proof that the entheological paradigm has any validity. It is not the detail or elegance of a theory that separates it from “half-baked ideas”, but rather the evidential proof. So until there is scientifically reproducible evidence, I see no reason why the entheological paradigm shouldn’t be lumped together with all of the other “half-baked” ideas about the nature of reality.


"Authenticity without humility doesn’t have much value."

According to whom? From where did this bit of wisdom come and what makes it true other than that the writer believes it? Ego statement through and through. What does this writer even mean by “authenticity” and “humility”? I’ve written and spoken a great deal about what it means to be authentic, and of the egoic nature of promoting ideas of "humility". Can this writer comment on what I’ve shared about this? Can they make a clear statement of why they are disagreeing with my definition of authenticity or humility? Is there any substance here, or just repeating worn-out beliefs that have no real basis in objective reality? This is vague and meaningless.

My original comment was directed at a post by Cloud and not specifically directed toward Mr. Ball, but to answer the question, I can say that authenticity without humility doesn’t have much value TO ME.

(I'm wondering how Martin Ball's followers would look like. Are there elf-clowns, pixies and unicorns in that crowd? Or are they more like Tyler Durden's private army? If I followed the path he had found and completed it, would I feel comfortable in the company of my fellow energeticians? Would there be place for friendship, love and affection? Does this path have a heart?)

It is a path without mythology or fantasy (elf clowns, pixies, unicorns, etc.). It is about being truly authentic with yourself. Which also means loving yourself and everyone/everything else around you. Love is the only energy.