Talk:Machine elf/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I moved this text from the article, because I couldn't see the connection with current article and the quote seems out of context.

See Walt Whitman's prophecies for the uncanny similarity:

"There will soon be no more priests. Their work is done. A new order shall arise, and they shall be the priests of man, and every man shall be his own priest. They shall find their inspiration in real objects to-day, symptoms of the past and future. They shall not deign to defend immortality or God, or the perfection of things, or liberty, or the exquisite beauty and reality of the soul."

Could somebody who understands what the connection between Machine Elves and Walt Whitman is supposed to be, rewrite this paragraph and link in it to the main article to make it more encyclopedic. -- Lexor 10:12, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A quote from Terence Mckenna re self transforming machine elves would be good here (im not sure what the policy is on quotes) from [1]

what happened was there was an encounter with what can only be described as an elf hive, a colony of self-transforming, hyperdimensional machine creatures that came bounding forward with joyful squeaks to dribble themselves like self-transforming jewelled basketballs on the floor in front of me, and I was dumbstruck with amazement

what I was surrounded by was a crowd of diminutive, self-transforming blobs of intentionalised ectoplasmic material, and they were producing out of their bodies objects which looked like Faberge eggs or exquisitely tooled machines made of ivory glass and gemstone that were themselves undergoing some kind of transformation, emitting musical sounds, condensing liquid metal out of the air and causing it to rain down on us.

Type thing Htaccess

While I was researching the Yanomami for my anthropology class years ago, I found that when they ingest DMT snuffs they witness these short ghosts they say are their ancestors. I think the word for them are haruku or something like that.

although I have never tried DMT,whilst under the influence of psylocibin[columbian,liberty caps etc...]I have had many experiences similar to the ones mentioned by people who have used DMT.The machine elves really caught my eye,especially when refered to as fractal elves.There seems to be a point in the experience of psylocibin ingestion where I zoom in on a kind of chaotic fractal phase.This then gives way to a more uniformed period of the fractal phase.There seems to be an emphasis on a kind of great order to the universe.This is then usually,after much pondering,broken by some kind of real disorder taking place,and throwing everything I have been thinking about into chaotic shambles[for instance,while observing horses racing at the track I noticed and became transfixed at the way their movement was so machine-like.Then suddenly,from out of nowhere,a real floppy-dobbin-of-a-pantomime-horse came bounding along and this great harmonic universal synchronisation seemed to be put into question once more].In the midst of all this at some point,and although not appearing as a true hallucination,much more a vision or images in my mind's eye,I experience something very close to what I have read about the 'machine elves trip'etc while on DMT.This has been a constant with all my experiences of hallucinogenics.This seems to start with some kind of descent into my imagination.But unlike the experiences I have read about from DMT users,the elves do not approach me or even seem to aknowledge my presence.The reason I bring this matter up is because of the sense of reality this experience seems to hold for me.In my early teens I would experience the 'munchkin' trip;and when I tried 'peruvian torch'[san pedro cactus]my minds eye cunjoured up little green peruvian men[this may have been some sort of auto-suggestion taking place,though].If anybody else has had similar experiences or has any suggestion as to what may be happening here I would be glad to here them.After quite a number of years taking hallucinogens I am quite aware that there are a lot of similarities between different psychedelics,but after recently hearing about the stories on of DMT ingesters/smokers experiences I am completely fascinated by the whole subject.Please contact me at j.o.n@merseymail.com All suggestions of the origins of this experience will be much welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.225.148 (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006 (UTC)

there seems to be a lot of conjecture, weasel words, general lack of references for opinions in this article, I realise it's an esoteric subject, but enough people have written and spoken about different kinds of DMT encounters that "Machine Elves" can be distinguished easily from several other types of commonly percieved entities that appear when people use DMT. If there is evidence that all DMT entities are Machine Elves, or that Machine Elves (SPECIFICALLY) appear to Shamans all ofver the world it would be nice to see who is documenting this and under what circumstances. In fact, the major study done indicated that these entities took very diverse forms frequently appearing as grey aliens, space bugs (i.e. giant metallic bees, mantises), humanoids, reptiles and stick figures. Under the circumstances, conflating Machine Elves with other entities seems unwise. I am not going to change the actual article without references of my own, but DMT: THe SPirit Molecule makes it quite clear that the entities that appear take vastly different forms from the "Elves" as they commonly appear. I certainly have found them to be quite different in personal behaviour as well. silentlight 29 Nov 2006.

I put a link to the sleeve cover mentioned in the article under External Links. Would it be a good idea to add a thumbnail of the image to the article body? Picaro 12:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment is in regard to the incorporation into the machine elf article of an illustration of a supposed self-transforming machine elf.

The cover picture linked by the Wikipedia machine elf article is very clearly derived from a depiction of a 7000 year old cave painting from Northern Algeria. There is some extrapolation of feet in the cover design and there are changes to both the headdress and around the hands but, otherwise, it seems extremely clear to me that the cave painting was used as a template for the illustration on the CD cover. For this reason, I find it exceedingly unlikely that the CD cover artwork depicting an "elf" was created drawing upon the memory of someone's experience of a "machine elf".

The cave painting depiction that I am referring to is the first illustration at http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_history.shtml

71.217.255.83 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) August Pamplona

the machine elf (alongside the drawing-1557 or early 1800s) was captured via crystalomancy (method used by John Dee to communicate spirits) Altho I was no inebriated by the DMT substance normally used to contact, they are the same envisioning entity for virtuosity

many reports lead us to believe it has shapeshifting qualities depending on your eyes/subconcious, to one it may be a my little pony, to another a "grey alien". I have experienced this entity in that form in both the crystal gazing & psychonaught experimentations

I could put a copyright symbol next to it, but it does not mean anything. It is free for helping to understand these secret sciences, the source is directly from the universe. it simply manifested by thy will.

Warrenoaksfishing 05:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• any comments- warrenoaksfishing@yahoo.com

I am unsure wether those pictures are really relevant in this article. Nihilumrob 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

much like bigfoot photos or the tiniest of bacteria or insignificant Lemming, it is here for its reference photographic evidence, tho psychic in this instance.

Warrenoaksfishing 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking these pictures off. The Grand Grimoire illustration predates McKenna. As McKenna originated the term "machine elf", I think a Reliable Source would involve McKenna himself designating this as an image of a machine elf (I have no idea whether this is an image McKenna ever used-if he did so, he should be cited). As for the photograph: A picture designated as an "artwork" or "photo-illustration" of a machine elf by the creater might be appropriate... A crystalomantic photo taken while on DMT; from my brief reading (just now) on crystalomancy, I still don't see how a camera would be able to capture the image of a machine elf... A crystalomantic photo taken while NOT on DMT; not relevant to the article unless there's a reliable source linking crystalomantic machine elves with DMT machine elves. 70.245.233.88 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, I think this article will eventually get deleted or merged into Terence McKenna. I also don't think there's really anything that can be added to the article. To summarize the article as it exists now:

"Terence McKenna used the metaphor "machine elves" to describe entity contact experiences he had with DMT. Some other cultures have shamanic traditions involving entity contact. Reasoning: McKenna's machine elves may be related to discussions by Strassman from an MD's viewpoint (where a variety of entity "forms" were reported-see silentlights comment above). References in Culture: Some bands and a webcomic hardly anybody has heard of mention machine elves (and hey, if you're going to mention Shpongle, also mention some of the tracks that actually sample McKenna going off about elves/gnomes)

Stuff in italics isn't directly relevant to "machine elves" anyway. There's really not much else to say about machine elves, although as mentioned above it would be good to a McKenna quote describing them. It would be better to merge what's here into an article like Hallucinations of entity contact-OK, that's a terrible title, come up with a better one. Include stuff like this User:Whitepaw/Salvia Goddess, something about Ketamine/Lilly/ECCO, more about entities Straussman's subjects experienced (as silentlight mentions), as well as the text of Machine elf.

I'd make a Hallucinations of entity contact (better title?) article myself, but I've never started an article before, and I suspect it'd be deleted (I don't see any other articles breaking psychedelic experiences down into more specific categories). Would such an article be worthwhile? 70.245.233.88 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree; this article really doesn't meet wikipedia standards at all.

It has nothing really informative in it after the first line. The Hamlet quote is an especially low point. I think it should be deleted, completely redone or reduced to a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.2.44 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article will never die. Instead, individual consciousness will die and we'll all fuse into one being. (Yes, I'm kidding.) --Nik (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially for the majority of 'normal' people(that don't have experience with/interest in psychedelics) like me. I have never heard of this concept before. The subject is very fascinating, that there appears to be mystical beings somehow controlling our consciousness and that they seem to be experienced by many different people taking many different substances. To me, that's just as relevant as biblical mythology. Maybe one could call it psychedelic mythology? Don't delete this article, *expand* it. 87.59.78.113 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The "description" section is referring to ME personally in the second person perspective - this is something no encyclopedia has ever done before, and seems decidedly un-encyclopedic. "You notice xyz", sounds more like a(/n) RPG than an encyclopedic article. xyzzy?

     That's a direct quote from McKenna, not the body of the text.67.68.29.171 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably be kept if it cites more sources and is rewritten somewhat, imho. Its current form seems totally wrong. 219.89.151.147 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead contains the following sentence:

References to such encounters can be found in many cultures ranging from shamanic traditions of Native Americans to indigenous Australians and African tribes, as well as among Western users of these substances.

I think we can improve the article by perhaps creating a section that expands upon that and lists some of those references. We could start with a story from each tradition listed.

I'll probably order the book and get started on that section once I have time to do it.

Please feel free to expand upon those references as well.

TheRingess (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from the lead, as it does not accurately depict the subject, as described in the sources.[2] It instead appears to be a depiction based on a literal interpretation of the name. --Vassyana (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The image on the page has no explanation and no source, so I will leave it here until someone can provide both. --LeakeyJee (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Artist's representation

This article describes a claim made by an author based on their own personal experience. It's my belief that there doesn't need to be a section attempting to explain/describe the possible source of this author's claim. Until there's evidence that all people experience this phenomenon during a psychedelic experience, then there seems no need to try to explain it, as it remains only the author's experience. This article is just documenting a phrase that is in popular usage amongst a certain population.TheRingess (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not only a "claim made by an author based on their own personal experience". Rather it is an attempt by an author to label a phenomena experienced by many. I am restoring this section while I add references. Then I may well cut it back some - it may be this article should be merged with Dimethyltryptamine Pontificalibus (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, to my untrained eye the original wording of the article seemed to imply a single claim made by a single author based on their own experience. Thanks for rewording it to make it more apparent that this is not just the work of a single author.TheRingess (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It very much is a claim made by a single author. Albeit an influential author, whose evocative prose may predispose people who take DMT after reading his works to interpret their experiences in light of his "machine elf" metaphor. There are trip reports out there where people talk about seeing machine elves, but as far as I'm aware no other reliable sources have adopted McKenna's nomenclature. DMT experiences may frequently include a feeling of having contacted "entities", but evidence that this is a universal, inescapable component of the DMT experience is lacking. Certainly there are other people who've written about entities contacted on DMT/ayahuasca trips who do not describe said entities as "machine elves". Strassman notes frequent experiences of contact with mantid/insectile entities in his research subjects. Reichel-Dolmatoff thought that visions of felines was a universal aspect of the ayahuasca experience. I see no reason to lend creedence to demagogues who think that everybody else must experience a psychedelic in the exact same way they do.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the "psychedelic experience". That usually implies LSD, mushrooms, etc. and those lead to a wide variety of different experiences for different people. This is about DMT which very consistently creates experience similar to what McKenna describes. His explanation is so famous because it was the first one to really summarize the universal DMT experience. 65.214.187.19 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Universal DMT experience"? Evidence please. Read Strassman or somebody besides McKenna. DMT is no different from LSD/mushrooms/etc in that different people (or the same person at different times) have different experiences. McKenna was a self-aggrandizing hack, and I refuse to let him tell me what I "should" experience. His explanation was famous because he was a gifted writer and he wrote it in the 2nd person so credible people think when he wrote "you" he was actually talking to them.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a "self-aggrandizing hack" isn't exactly a neutral perspective. It also depends on where you're getting his comments on DMT from - in some cases, he discusses the experience as if it were objective, however in other lectures, it's made clear that they are subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.122.3 (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

i feel like i should add a citation, example or see also that links to something about the Salvia Goddess, but can't easily find a decent source and am not sure what i'd do with it. does anyone have advice, or want to add it themselves? 94.193.221.42 (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones talked recently about the DMT elves. Since this article was tagged as "lacking references", I decided to add a bunch to it (all cited), including that Alex Jones one. The reference I gave to Alex Jones was a link to Youtube where he actually says those things that claimed in one of his shows. Then, user 76.22.208.42 deleted my whole Alex Jones entry saying it was due to "uncredible sources" Because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia can someone explain whether this user was making a valid point, or if s/he was just "vandalising" (or however it's called)? I'm not sure if I should revert, fearing an "edit war". Wawawemn (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another user re-added the paragraph, and then yet another user deleted it again. Since now I know that I'm not the only one who finds no valid reason for removing it, I reverted the changes and invited those opposed to discuss it here before removing it again.Wawawemn (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the article acknowledges "his show was received with ridicule by a number of sources", why should we include mention of it? It seems likely to merely confuse the casual reader. What does it add to our understanding of the subject? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

I think that the fact of something being received with ridicule by someone else does not mean it should be erased from encyclopedias. Even if I agreed with the "number of sources" mentioned, the post could serve as a piece of information (which is the point encyclopedias exist). Wawawemn (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't include every viewpoint in an article, only those that aid in a balanced understanding of the subject. To give undue weight to claims widely ridiculed by reliable sources would not be helpful to our readers. In the Venus article we don't mention that Japan's first lady visited there and said it was green (1).--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "Machine Elves" were more popular than Alex Jones (they are not even close, unfortunately), then what you just said would put me straight.

Another thing: You talk about the readers' "understanding of the subject". In this article, what do you think should be the point where weight should be given?

It's just a bunch of references to entities existing in an "abnormal" dimension.

There's no point in the article that we should "protect" from other insignificant information (unless we go into POV disputes regarding which of the cited people here is more significant).

In general, until either this article becomes a more serious one, (including serious possible explanations of the elves) or it becomes PART of a more serious one (see my "How I think this could become a more informative article" section above), then I still see no reason in giving weight to one reference over anotherWawawemn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately the main problem is that the content you have added currently amounts to WP:OR because it lacks WP:RS. Take a look at the guidelines to familiarise yourself with what we can and can't add as content. An editors personal observations are not admissible. Blog and forum posts are also unusable. --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Main reference I cited was Youtube which IS allowed as a source on Wikipedia as far as I know. The other main one was boingboing.net. As far as I know, this is not exactly a "blog", but a webzine. Not sure if that's allowed as a refernce, but I'll look into it right nowWawawemn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it difficult to understand indents on Wikipedia. Hopefully this comes out fine. I found that boingboing is actually a "group blog". According to Wikipedia's rules "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". By this, boingboing should also be considered a reliable source.Wawawemn (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"News outlet" refers to an organisation such as Reuters, Associated Press, NY Times, Gaurdian, etc. How does boingboing meet the criteria highlighted above? And doesn't Alex Jones own the copyright to all footage he airs? even if someone else has placed it on Youtube? see WP:YT. Also in the first sentence, "On one of Alex Jones' TV shows he told how the government "elites" smoke DMT before the "clockwork elves", as he calls them, appear to them and instruct them what to do," you add a cite which is just a link to the video, the editorial commentary is yours, you are not citing a secondary source. This happens again when you say, "His show was received with ridicule by a number of sources," because this is your observation. Is there a WP:RS that offers such a commentary? one that we can cite here? If not, we will have to scrub the content. --Semitransgenic (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP rules say "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs". By your definition of a news outlet, can you name me one that "hosts an interactive column it calls a blog"? I would appreciate it if you could give here such an example and then explain what makes it a "news outlet" as opposed to boingboing, which also posts news written by professionals and subject to its editors' editorial control (I am truly interested to learn, not being ironic). Regarding the YouTube copyright "issue", can you show us how you know that there is actually a copyright issue? (if you do, then I would be happy to look elsewhere for a reference to Alex Jone's show to replace the citation). [Regarding your last two points (from "Also in the..." and onwards): Those are my observations of what the cited references (of which the reliability is a different issue already mentioned by your previous two points) say; isn't that what we are supposed to write on Wikipedia?]Wawawemn (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

it's not "my definition" of news outlet it's the standard definition. Examples of news outlet blogs include:[3][4][5][6]. Difference between this and boingboing? Give WP:RS and related policy a good read, it boils down to reliability and notability. Boingboing is one of hundreds of random blogs out there reporting random stuff, what makes it, or its writers, notable? I think the distinction should be pretty clear.

www.infowarscom/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Jones' site] clearly states at the bottom "©2011 Infowars.com." Jones owns the copyright to his own footage, hence the legitimacy of Jones posting his own videos to Youtube. The video you link to is an upload by someone other than the copyright holder, it therefore represents an infringement of copyright, we are asked to avoid linking to such material.Which of those sources discusses that "His show was received with ridicule by a number of sources." Anyway, the problem here is the sources so please list further queries on WP:RSN.--Semitransgenic (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend this piece of information any further because I don't really care that much about it (I just added it in the first place because the article was tagged as "lacking citations"). Just for the record, though, I don't think boingboing is "one of hundreds of random blogs" etc. So, it's not "pretty clear", because different people can have different opinions about "reliability and notability"- that's why I was asking for a standard definition that would separate boingboing from nytimes as a news outlet blog (and not just your opinion of what you think is reliable/notable and what not), which you obviously can't provide right now (though I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and I would still like to see it if anyone can provide it).

Regarding Alex Jone's material, as far as I know, just because something is copyrighted doesn't necessarily mean that ANYONE other than him who posts it is committing a copyright infringement (it could be s/he has his license to do it). (I would like to be corrected if I'm wrong about this.)Wawawemn (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

nothing to do with my opinion, everything stated appears to reflect a consensus opinion arrived at by wikipedia editors, hence the various policy pages. Like I said, feel free to raise the reliability issue at WP:RSN if you need input from other editors. Sure, they might have a license, maybe you could find out? --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

After researching the matter a bit I conclude that McKenna's "machine elves" is not an original concept, although it's an original name for it. There are many reports of people who had experienced elves or similar strange beings under DMT, before McKenna.

So I think this article should be renamed something like "DMT elves" or "DMT entities"; or, it could even be expanded and generalised to include other entities that appear under psychedelic drugs, like the Salvia Goddess that the previous fellow proposed. This case I think would be more interesting, as we could also add possible scientific explanations for these experiences that could apply for all such phenomena (I can find a few such references).

If anyone has an opinion about this, please say so here. Wawawemn (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Point. My vote would be "DMT entities", then perhaps "Machine Elfs" could re-direct to this page with its own sub-category for McKenna. Rick Strassman is a good source for this. Jason (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do that, as this article gives the impression that the elves that appear under DMT are McKenna's "discovery". I will read a bit more of Rick Strassman's work, as well as other references older than McKenna's. When I have enough info, I'll start making the change.Wawawemn (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)