Join me today, as I have a discussion with Jan Irvin from Gnostic Media about Entheogens, The Trivium, and The Quadrivium. Jan is an author, film-maker, publisher, and Pod-Crafter. He is a wealth of information, and a quality source for related topics. Visit his website, learn what he has to teach, buy a book, or two (or three), or just say thank you with a Gratuity-Donation. WE HAVE THE POWER TO ENSURE WORK LIKE HIS CONTINUES.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:16:36 — 70.1MB) | Embed
Jan, you are true inspiration. I like how you have tied the entheogenic experience to practical daily thinking. Hopefully we can incorporate this type of learning and thinking into the mainstream. This is a start. Thanks for all your work!
metta~
Hey Jan, I was a few minutes into your interview when I decided to rewind and make a song out of the words of the guy before your interview starts, I think it’s worth sharing. Here’s the mp3: https://www.yousendit.com/download/MzZHQmtha0Q1R05jR0E9P
Thanks for taking us where no one has been before. Your show rocks!
@ Jan – Thanks again for your time and re-posting the talk here.
@ Eduardo – http://www.infowarts.com/2010/10/episode-020-next-step-radio-show-taalam.html – a link for the interview I did with Taalam Acey. I like your rendition of ‘Pre-Meditated Karma’. Check out some of his other words, you’ll dig them as well. I mix in some of my favorite of his pieces, as we go through the talk.
I am trying to squeeze as many archived podcasts in before my lil $12 membership runs out & I gotta say- I’m having a great time! It’s a week-long Jan Irvin marathon while I cook-clean-exercise-etc & just about every topic is one that I am deeply interested in. Thanks.
So if “Bangladesh” is “land of the marijuana people”, then Bon, the original pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet, is named for the magical weed too, isn’t it ?
at you say that the correct pronunciation is ‘psych o delic’ and not ‘psych e delic’, that assertion is false, the correct word (according to Humphrey Osmond)is and always has been ‘psych e delic’ meaning ‘revealing the psyche’
See if you can pay attention…
REGARDLESS of what ever MIS-Pronounciation, MIS-Word formation, that Humphrey Osmond, who was not a linguist, created, was WRONG.
Next time try to put your grammar before your leaps to false conclusions. You were told the correct formation, and yet you still ignored it. Incredible. This fact is entirely well published throughout the psychedelic literature. Did you even bother with a Google search before regurgitating nonsense? Furthermore, psycho and delic and Greek and Latin put together… it’s not Greek or Latin, it’s Greek and Latin.
“However, not only is ‘psychedelic’ an incorrect verbal formation, but it has become so invested with connotations of the pop-culture of the 1960s that it is incongruous to speak of a shaman taking a ‘psychedelic’ drug.” Psychedelic Drugs, by Ruck, J., 1979 11: 145. Quoted from Ott, 1995.
We’ve even discussed this very fact at length with people like Prof. Carl Ruck, who invented the word entheogen, because the word psychedelic is WRONG.
Jesus Christ!
you have not responded to my point. In this interview you said that ‘psychedelic’ it is a wrong pronounciation, and that it should in fact be pronounced ‘Psychodelic’. And i responded that this assertion is false, it has no basis in reality, the word ‘psychodelic’ does not exist, nobody ever said it. In fact the correct word is ‘psychedelic’ (regardless of whether this word is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as a descriptor of a certain class of drugs, it is always pronounced with an ‘e’ sound in the middle and never an ‘o’ sound). This follows from the fact that the Greek word for ‘soul’ is spelled in ancient greek with the letters sigma – upsillon – chi – and finally ETA (which is an ‘e’ sound, the long ‘o’ sound in greek is made by the letter ‘omega’). You can see that this is true if you look at the following page from a dictionary of ancient greek: ‘http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=%5ESoul,%20subs.’
Furthermore, the word ‘psychedelic’ has no connection to latin, it comes from 2 greek words, the second of which (meaning ‘reveal’) can be seen on the following page from the same greek dictionary: http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=%5EReveal,%20v.%20trans.
Kalvinder, you’re still not paying attention to reality.
Regardless that Osmond said, regardless if anyone said it, it’s WRONG.
Psycho-pharmacology
Psycho-somatic,
Psycho-pomp
Psycho
The word is PSYCHO, NOT PSYCHE. the word does NOT EXIST in Greek, it’s an improper formation of Greek and Latin put together and should NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I suggest you take up a study of Greek and Latin and then tell me it’s psychededelic. Talk to a language professor, rather than doing google searches…
Regardless if a herd of uneducated hippies called psychedelic, rather than psychOdelic, does not make the word correct.
You can misspell things every day your entire life, and that doesn’t make the spelling correct. You can appeal to a million hippies and morons can’t be wrong, but they are.
The word is psycho – mind
and delic – to manifest or reveal.
There is no psyche in any other formation of the word. I’m well aware that it’s found in lexicons today, but again, talk with a language professor about the issue, which I’ve often done. It’s a bad formation, regardless of how many people thoughtlessly regurgitate it.
There’s nothing on the two links you included that deal with this issue at all. Rather, feel free to contact Prof. Carl Ruck at Boston University who’s a language expert and has dealt with and discussed this very topic at length.
I’m not going to go in circles and waste my time all day with someone who wants to chase their tail and believe in such nonsense.
i am a postgraduate scholar of ancient Greek at Bristol university, and i have worked on translating Plato’s texts which frequently include the word ‘psyche’ spelt with the greek letters psi-chi-upsillon-ETA
if the word was pronounced ‘psycho’, the final greek letter would be omega, and not eta, because it is omega that makes the long ‘o’ sound as in the word ‘psycho’
in ancient greek, there is no such word as ‘psycho’, you will not find that word in any ancient greek texts, nor in any dictionaries of ancient greek, it never existed. Whereas the word ‘psyche’, ending in ‘eta’ (and also many derivations of this word), is very common in ancient greek
The Greek dictionary which i linked to clearly shows that the final letter is ‘eta’, which makes an ‘e’ sound.
so the word is psych (eta) delic, and not ‘psych (omega) delic, as the greek dictionary clearly establishes, are you claiming that the greek dictionary is wrong to use the letter ‘eta’?
Furthermore, neither Carl Ruck, not Jonathan Ott have ever used the word ‘psychodelic’ in their books, but they both make frequent use of the word ‘psychedelic’.
the actual Greek symbols are ψυχή which is pronounced ‘psyche’. The word ‘psychosis’, (from which the slang word ‘psycho’ is derived) comes from the 2 greek words for ‘mind’ (ψυχή – psyche) and ‘illness’ (ωσις – osis). See how the long ‘o’ sound is not at the end of the first word ‘psych’, but rather it is at the beginning of the second word ‘ωσις’ – osis, the greek symbol ‘ω’ gives the long ‘o’ sound as in ‘osis’. So the word ‘psychosis’ expands into the full greek as ‘psycheosis’.
how can you claim that “the word ‘psyche’ does NOT EXIST in Greek” when i showed you the entry for the word ‘psyche’ in a dictionary of ancient Greek? That is strange reasoning for a man who claims to care about logic. Look at the ancient greek manuscript of Plato’s republic, which contains many uses of the word ‘psyche’, then come back and admit that the word exists.
Then try and find one use in any ancient greek text for the word ‘psycho’, you will not find it anywhere, i will donate my next month’s wages to gnostic media if you prove me wrong
Psyche on its own exists, as when we discuss someone’s psyche, but not as a word formation. It’s PSYCHO. Again, I’ve asked you repeatedly to contact a language professor and stop going in circles with this nonsense.
This is from the Oxford dictionary. Notice this specific point:
******[Abbrev. of various words beginning with this element.]******
psycho, n. and a. colloq.
(ˈsaɪkəʊ)
******[Abbrev. of various words beginning with this element.]******
A.A n.
1.A.1 Psychoanalysis or psychology. Also attrib. or as adj.
2.A.2 A psychologist.
3.A.3 A psychopath.
B.B adj.
1.B.1 Psychological.
2.B.2 Psychopathic.
psycho-
(ˈpsaɪkəʊ-, ˈsaɪkəʊ-)
before a vowel regularly psych-, repr. Gr. ψῡχο-, ψῡχ-, combining form of ψῡχή breath, life, soul. In modern use, since the 17th c., taken as a formative in the sense of ‘mind’, ‘psychic organism’, ‘mental’, ‘psychical’, mainly in scientific compounds, for the more important of which see their alphabetical places. The following are chiefly 19th or 20th century formations. (The second element is properly from Greek, but in some cases from Latin.)
psychæsthetic, var. psycho-æsthetic below; psyˈchalgia [Gr. ἄλγος pain] (see quot.); †psyˈchandric a. [irreg. f. Gr. ἀνηρ, ἀνδρ- man], ? pertaining to the mind of man; psychasˈthenia [ad. F. psychasthénie (P. M. F. Janet 1893, in Rev. gén. des Sci. pures et appliquées IV. 176); cf. asthenia] (see quot. 1908); hence psychasˈthenic a., pertaining to or affected with psychasthenia; also as n., a person with psychasthenia; psychoˈactive a. = psychotropic a.; hence psychoacˈtivity; psycho-æsˈthetics, the study of the psychological aspects of æsthetic perception; hence psycho-æsˈthetic (also psychæsthetic) a.; psycho-ˈauditory a., connected with the mental perception of sound (Syd. Soc. Lex. 1895); ˈpsychobabble colloq. (orig. U.S.), jargon that is much influenced by the concepts and terminology of psychology and is used esp. by laymen in referring to their own personality or relationships; hence ˈpsychobabbler, one who uses such jargon; ˈpsychoblast [-blast], the germ from which the psychic organism is (hypothetically) developed; psychoˈcentral a., having its centre in the mind; psychoˈcentric a. Psychol., treating the psyche or mind, rather than the body, as the important factor in human behaviour; psychoˈchemical a., pertaining to the relationship between chemicals and the mind, esp. the way the former can be used to modify the latter; also (of a chemical), psychotropic; also as n., a psychotropic chemical; psychoˈchemistry, the chemistry of the mind; psychoˈcoma [coma1], mental stupor; psychoˈcultural a., relating to the interaction of the culture in which individuals live and their psychological characteristics; psychoˈcurative a., of or pertaining to the healing of mental or psychological disorders; ˌpsychodiagˈnosis, -diagˈnostics Psychol. [after Ger. (H. Rorschach Psychodiagnostik (1921))], the investigation of a subject’s personality, esp. by means of Rorschach and other projective tests; hence ˌpsychodiagˈnostic a.; psychoˈdometer [cf. odometer], an instrument proposed for measuring the duration of mental processes; psychodysˈleptic [Gr. δύσληπτος hard to take hold of] = psychotomimetic n.; psychoˈendocrine a., relating to or involving both the endocrine glands and mood and behaviour; ˌpsychoendocriˈnology, the branch of science concerned with the relationship between the secretions of the endocrine glands and a person’s mood and behaviour; hence ˌpsychoendocrinoˈlogic a., -endocrinoˈlogically adv., -endocriˈnologist; psycho-ˈethical a., of or pertaining to inborn moral ideas; psychoˈfugal a. [after centrifugal], tending away from the mind; psychogeˈography, that branch of psychological speculation or investigation which is concerned with the effects on the psyche of the geographical environment; so psychogeoˈgraphic, -ical adjs.; psychogeusic (-ˈgjuːsɪk) a. [Gr. γεῦσις taste], relating to mental perception of taste; psychognosy (-ˈɒgnəsɪ), also in mod.L. form psychognosis (-əʊgˈnəʊsɪs), (a) the investigation or knowledge of mental phenomena; (b) thought-reading; psycho-ˈhylism [hylism], the belief that the soul is material; so psycho-ˈhylist, one who holds this belief; psyˈcholatry, excessive reverence for the soul; worship of departed spirits; ˈpsycholepsy [Gr. λῆψις seizing], ‘possession’, ecstasy; so psychoˈleptic a., (a) characterized by psycholepsy; (b) characterized by a sudden fall in psychic tension; (c) (of a drug) sedative; psycholytic (-ˈlɪtɪk) a. [-lytic], applied to a drug such as LSD which can disturb or disrupt certain emotional reactions that have become fixed in the unconscious or can block normal channels of response; chiefly in psycholytic therapy, therapy that combines controlled use of low dosages of such drugs with psychotherapeutic instruction for the patient and subsequent discussion; psychomiˈmetic a. and n. = psychotomimetic a. and n.; psychoˈmonism [monism] (see quot.); psychomoˈtility Psychol., physical movement which reflects or is evidence of mental activity; psychoˈneural, of or pertaining to the relationship or interaction between the mind and the nervous system; ˌpsychoneuroˈendocrine, -ˌneuroˌendocrinoˈlogic, -ˈlogical adjs., of or pertaining to the joint or mutual action of the nervous system, the endocrine system, and behaviour; so ˌpsychoˌneuroendocriˈnology, the branch of science concerned with this; psychoneuˈrology, the division of neurology which deals with psychology (cf. neuropsychology); hence ˌpsychoneuroˈlogical a.; psyˈchonomy [see -nomy], the branch of psychology dealing with the laws of mental action; psychonoˈsology [nosology], the branch of medical science which treats of mental disease (Dunglison Med. Lex. 1853); psycho-ˈoptic a., relating to the mental perception of sight (Syd. Soc. Lex.); so psycho-ˈoptical a.; psycho-ˈosmic [Gr. ὀσµή smell], pertaining to mental perception of smell (Billings Med. D. 1890); psychoˈparesis [paresis], mental debility; psyˈchopetal a. [after centripetal], tending towards the mind; ˌpsycho-pharmaˈceutical a. and n., (a drug) that is psychotropic; ˈpsycho-philosophy, philosophical reasoning based on subjective criteria, or on subjective psychic criteria; hence ˈpsycho-philosopher; psyˈchophony [Gr. ϕωνή voice]: see quot.; ˌpsychoˌphysicotheraˈpeutics nonce-wd., remedial treatment of mind and body; psycho-poˈlitical a., characterized by the interaction of politics or political events and behaviour; so psycho-ˈpolitics; psycho-ˈprismatism [cf. prismatic a. 2] (see quot.); psyˈchoptic a., producing vision of the mind or soul; psychoˈpyrism [Gr. πῦρ fire], the belief that fire is the substance of the soul; so psychoˈpyrist, one holding this belief; psycho-ˈreflex a., of or pertaining to ‘reflex’ action of the mind; psyˈchorrhagy, ‖psychoˈrrhagia [Gr. ῥαγή breaking, rupture], detachment of the soul or psychic element; hence psychoˈrrhagic a.; ˈpsychorrhythm, an alternating or rhythmic psychic condition (Syd. Soc. Lex.); psychoˈsarcous a. [Gr. σάρξ, σαρκ- flesh], having a spiritual body; ˈpsychoscope, a means or instrument for inspecting the mind or soul; psycho-senˈsorial a., of or pertaining to percepts not produced by any real action on the senses; so psycho-ˈsensory a. (Billings 1890), pertaining to the conscious perception of sensory impulses; psycho-socioˈlogical a., pertaining to sociology as connected with psychology; so psycho-sociˈologist, -sociˈology; psyˈchosophy, the philosophy or metaphysics of mind (Cent. Dict.); so psyˈchosophist; ˈpsychosphere, the sphere or realm of consciousness; cf. noosphere; psychoˈstimulant n. and a., (a drug that is) antidepressant; ˈpsychosyndrome, a syndrome in which the symptoms are psychological; psycho-ˈsynthesis, the integration of disjoint elements of the psyche or personality by means of psychoanalysis; hence (nonce-wds.) psycho-ˈsynthesist, one who practises or advocates this; psycho-synˈthetic a.; psychoˈtheism [Gr. θεός God], the doctrine of the absolute spirituality of God; psycho-ˈvisual a., pertaining to psychological factors associated with vision, such as the emotive connotations of particular colours, and to the centre in the brain associated with such processes; see also visuo-psychic s.v. visuo-; psycho-ˈvital a., pertaining to the mind as connected with life; psychoˈzoic a., of or belonging to the geological period of living creatures having souls or minds, i.e. the human period.
You wrote:
Kalvinder on June 11, 2012 at 10:52 am (Edit)
“the actual Greek symbols are ψυχή which is pronounced ‘psyche’. The word ‘psychosis’, (from which the slang word ‘psycho’ is derived) comes from the 2 greek words for ‘mind’ (ψυχή – psyche) and ‘illness’ (ωσις – osis). See how the long ‘o’ sound is not at the end of the first word ‘psych’, but rather it is at the beginning of the second word ‘ωσις’ – osis, the greek symbol ‘ω’ gives the long ‘o’ sound as in ‘osis’. So the word ‘psychosis’ expands into the full greek as ‘psycheosis’.
Reply
Kalvinder on June 11, 2012 at 10:57 am (Edit)
how can you claim that “the word ‘psyche’ does NOT EXIST in Greek” when i showed you the entry for the word ‘psyche’ in a dictionary of ancient Greek? That is strange reasoning for a man who claims to care about logic. Look at the ancient greek manuscript of Plato’s republic, which contains many uses of the word ‘psyche’, then come back and admit that the word exists.
Then try and find one use in any ancient greek text for the word ‘psycho’, you will not find it anywhere, i will donate my next month’s wages to gnostic media if you prove me wrong”
Psyche, again, exists on it’s own, but NOT AS A WORD FORMATION in this CONTEXT. The WORD FORMATION IS WRONG.
The O in PsychOsis, only one example that takes it from the second word, or rather, the end of the first and beginning of the second have O, so the duplicate is dropped.
That Prof. Ruck uses the word psychedelic in his publications is a red herring to what I said that he’s published extensively about how the word is an improper formation – as have many others. In fact, you can hear the professor of the pharmacy department and I discuss this very issue at Loma Linda UMC School of Pharmacy, Dec. 2010 under the video section.
If you’re studying Greek, you’ll flunk if you put forth your argument on an exam. Good luck with that.
Again, you’re creating a straw man, PSYCHE, on it’s OWN, exists, but NOT as a word formation. See if you can grasp the concept of formation. That’s when you put two words, or more, together…
Since you claim to study Greek, take this to your professor, and ask him if psychedlic, or psychodelic, is correct, and if Osmond’s word formation is incorrect. If it’s incorrect, you can pay me your month’s salary.
You’ve only found one word that substantiates your argument, and I’ve posted many dozens above. Good luck.
And by the way, “by study of logic” and your red herring and misapplication of it are unrelated. See if you can remain focused on the issue here without slinging fallacies. You’ll lose.
Ok Jan, i have had an email exchange with a professor from the department of linguistics about this issue. I asked him if it is correct to assert (as you have, implicitly) that any irregular formation of ancient Greek words into modern neologisms are intrinsically ‘wrong/incorrect’. The relevant part of her response is as follows:
****STARTIt would be a category error to assert that such irregular word formations are ‘incorrect’, a word that has been formulated across official channels which has entered common parlance must be ‘correct’ simply in virtue of the fact that it has been successfully incorporated into the lexicon. There are numerous complex rules involved in the process of determining word formations from ancient languages. These rules are by no means fixed or strict, there is a significant scope for artistic license when entirely new words, expressing new concepts, are formulated. The formation of new English words out of compounds of ancient-language words is not a fixed, algorithmic process, especially with regard to modern neologisms, it typically involves some combination of established formation patterns. The standard source for this kind of information is the book ‘Word-formation in English’ (Ingo Plag, Cambridge University press, 2002). The appropriate question to ask in these kinds of instances is not “is this particular word-formation correct or incorrect?”; one should rather be asking “what combination of structural approaches and concerns resulted in this particular word entering the lexicon?” It is often easy to identify what a word’s creator had in mind when they created the word, and any good dictionary includes this information. There are many irregular word formations in English, but they are not considered to be ‘incorrect’ just as irregular verb declensions are not considered incorrect.END*****
So it seems that Ruck is mistaking irregularity for incorrectness. Osmond would definitely have been aware of the spellings of the ancient Greek ‘psyche’, and of the spellings of modern words like ‘psychologist’, and yet he deliberately chose to spell the word ‘psych-e-delic’, this wasn’t a ‘mistake’ which was somehow completely overlooked as this word entered the English language (as you are claiming), it was a choice that Osmond made for some reason that was at least known to him. Furthermore, this argument is not what Ruck was suggesting in the quote you gave earlier. Ruck was saying that because of the cultural connotations that have become (as he alleges) adhered to the word ‘psychedelic’, the word cannot be used to apply to the kind of drugs that shamans use because to do so would be “incongruous”. That is a nonsense argument from Ruck, which completely ignores the etymology of the word ‘psychedelic’ – a straightforward description of the psychological effect of LSD, which has nothing to do with cultural connotations (except perhaps the culture of academic psychology that Osmond was involved with).
Could Ruck have some ulterior motive for wanting to discredit the word ‘psychedelic’? Like perhaps a desire to have his word ‘entheogen’ rise to prominence, which he has notably failed to do (both erowid and wikipedia place far more prominent emphasis on ‘psychedelic’ in the pages on LSD and psilocybin mushrooms). Ruck’s statement about the ‘incongruity’ of calling ayahuasca ‘psychedelic’ is a straw man, ayahuasca is a psychedelic drug because it manifests the underlying mental processes of its users, regardless of whatever ‘cultural connotations’ Ruck perceives. I wonder if rainforest shamans would unanimously agree that ayahuasca ‘generates a God within oneself’. It seems quite incongruous to me that Ruck is both a self-proclaimed atheist, and also a believer in the entheogenic ‘God within’. Perhaps in their zeal to contribute something new and profound to the field, these ‘scholars’ like Ruck end up making things needlessly complicated, creating new words for things that don’t need new words, and making bogus accusations of “incorrect word-formation” and “negative cultural connotations” against the old words to try to seal their place in history.
I like that your professor starts out with an appeal to popularity fallacy:
“a word that has been formulated across official channels which has entered common parlance must be ‘correct’ simply in virtue of the fact that it has been successfully incorporated into the lexicon.”
Actually, the word didn’t go through official channels, and when you read papers from Harvard, et al, they all cringed over the formation of the word. Just because a word becomes popular, doesn’t mean that it’s “correct” – and he uses a fallacy of equivocation on the word “correct”. He should define what he means as “correct”. By his definition, I could form any “aldhjkdakdjkd” like a monkey banging on a keyboard, and if it got popular, it’s correct. That’s nonsense. A million Frenchmen can’t be wrong – that’s also just nonsense. 85+% of what’s in most people’s heads is entirely erroneous and unverified regurgitation from others… This is in large part why society is in the mess it’s in.
If a word that’s improper is used, such as colloquial slang, then it’s marked as such.
Then your professor friend makes a broad, generalized statement about language as a whole, when I posted how word formations are accomplished specifically with the word psycho directly from the Oxford English dictionary – and then he turns and says what can be found in any good dictionary… as I already pointed out – the dictionary clearly says it’s psycho. Why does he need to go from the lesser to the greater – from the word psycho to this generalized statement about language? This is poor thinking on his part. Maybe he’s unable to stay focused – So rather than focus on the specific information I provided, he creates this broad, generalized red herring fallacy because he doesn’t know how to cope with the specific information I provided above from Oxford on psycho and proper Greek formations.
When you discussed this with a professor of the linguistics department, did you make sure he was a scholar of Classical Greek? Or is he more of the Noam Chomsky, or sophist variety? Noam’s version of linguistics is actually to make it more complicated than say a basic understanding via the classical 7 liberal arts.
Your friend states:
“one should rather be asking “what combination of structural approaches and concerns resulted in this particular word entering the lexicon?” It is often easy to identify what a word’s creator had in mind when they created the word, and any good dictionary includes this information”
Blah blah blah… rather than looking at the actual word, let’s look at the structural approaches found in any dictionary instead. Indeed… maybe he didn’t read what I posted from Oxford that is made quite clear – that the word is based from pscyho, not psyche. Did your friend bother to notice that was from Oxford? That’s the Oxford OED – the best dictionary in fact.
That’s an interesting approach at looking at a modern formation that was pushed into popularity… your friend’s a bit of a sophist it seems.
We know what particular approaches went into the word entering the lexicon, Osmond writing a book with Huxley’s overview and influence (Huxley and these guys worked with eugenics, MK-Ultra and the like, and had not checked with others (much less a dictionary)) and popularized it through hippies, when the word spelled correctly wouldn’t have garnered any negative response from the academic community in the first place. Osmond was a psychologist, not a linguist, and didn’t realize that the title of his own field is pscyho-logy. He considered the one word psyche, and went no further in his understanding. Aldous Huxley, who worked above him, had also attempted to create a word that didn’t get popularity – “phanerothyme” – (and without the adaptation of “psychedelic” by Luce and Time-Life and the CIA, there wasn’t something they could really push – they needed a catchy word). So when we see who was behind the creation and push of the word its quite clear: The CIA, eugenics, and ill-educated hippies that regurgitated what ever from their handlers.
The word properly formed as “psychodelic” would have just as easily entered the lexicon, had it been spelled correctly in the first place – and infact – easier and without academic resistance from the start for being spelled wrong – as I cited you from Oxford the proper version is psycho – IN ALL USAGE.
Words like “ain’t” are popular, but still incorrect usage. In fact, ain’t didn’t make it into a dictionary until sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The word ain’t is an improper word formation of “is not”. Just because it’s popular slang, or used by lazy people, idiots, morons and red necks, doesn’t mean that it’s a proper formation or “correct” usage – regardless if your linguist thinks it’s popular – and therefore correct. Maybe he’s never passed an English exam. If you’re writing, say, a novel, and you want to DEPICT a character as an idiot, moron, lazy person, etc, you might put the word “ain’t” – or “psychedelic” in their mouth – however, making it clear that it’s that character using that word.
But it’s not just Ruck who’s raised the issue, but any number of experts in the field have taken issue with the word over the last 50 years, the two main reasons being: 1) It’s spelled wrong, and 2) it’s been taken over by hippies and dotards who’ve lost its meaning to begin with.
There’s an interesting conversation from Richard Evans Schultez at Harvard over the word psychedelic. I suggest you read the actual criticisms of the official channels whom your unnamed expert appeals to authority on. If he’s going to appeal to authority, he should at least know there’s no consensus – with the leading scholars at Harvard and Yale criticizing the words usage. Certainly just because a word gets used doesn’t mean that it was broadly accepted without huge debate and issue (or marketing) – hence why most scientists still use the word hallucinogen.
Anyway, I’m through with this conversation. If you’d like to chase your tale on the issue you’re more than welcome.