[naremu]

Unfortunately Terrence McKenna (or fortunately depending on how you look at things) doesn't seem to have retained the same popularity.

He does still have some decent "pithy one liners" but if I remember right, he didn't stay in a philosophical lane and was known to indulge in pop culture conspiracies and his own pet theories (based on excruciatingly little but conjecture and didn't really respond to criticism of it)

I've honestly started to consider it a little bit unbecoming to compare people to McKenna. He's a major contributor to a romantic and oversimplified/inaccurate understanding of things like shamanhood and the roles drugs played in ancient societies, so it's probably a good thing people don't talk about him like they used to.

Almost kind of the antithesis to Watts in my mind, but seemingly from the same side of the fence: McKenna was all about what he thought, and Watts never gave me the impression he even had an agenda for me to believe in, rather wanting to help people explore the world he'd discovered, he labored to find the words to depict, not to convince.

[lacrimacida]

Yeah, they don’t compare in that sense. But I still find McKenna very charming to listen to, and am sometimes wowed to what cooky ideas he may have reached in his lectures. The man has a fascinating oratory skill. Despite his wild speculations he has a very interesting depiction of his own ideas and his overarching theme is one of union with the nature which no matter how reached at it’s a positive thing IMO.