Jonathan Dickerson: Ibogaine and the Bicameral Mind

**Cliff Dunning** (0:12)
Welcome to Destiny.

**Jonathan Dickinson** (0:15)
Now, here's your host, Cliff Dunning.

**Cliff Dunning** (0:21)
Hey, this is Cliff, and welcome to Destiny. I hope you're doing well today. I have run into some pretty startling news recently, and that has to do with Maya hieroglyphs. It looks like the academia is getting only about 40 percent correct. And this is a startling bit of news I received from the Maya scholar Victor Monteo, who now tells me that and is publishing a book on this fact that it seems like much of the writing, even the most recent book on Maya hieroglyphs, which is by David Stewart, called The Four Heavens, I've been talking about it. It looks like perhaps 40 percent is missing. And that's a lot. I was under the impression it was in the teens, like 12 or 15 percent was not really known. But he is now claiming, based on his research, that the Maya, the current translations are way off. And I don't think Stewart's going to like that. The problem is that no one's called these specialists out on their work. And it goes all the way back to Yuri Norzikov, who was the main breakthrough in understanding my hieroglyphs and what they meant. And it goes back to him because he never came to Mexico until after his book was deciphered or after his book was published.
And his writing was revealed. And it just kept getting worse and worse and worse. Linda Shealy, Michael Cole, now David Stewart.
They're kind of perpetuating this problem. And it's good news in many ways, because AI is going to continue to be important for decipherment. And as I mentioned before, we're getting a sense of some of the early phases of the pre-classic Maya. These are kings and administrations that are featured on these standing stones known as Stela.
And what they're telling us is there were courts, there were administrators, there were decrees, there were pompous attitudes by the kings, and there were great wars where there was a lot of bloodletting. So this is good to know. We want to know what's going on and decipherment. I mean, if they're not getting 40 percent of these hieroglyphs correctly deciphered, that's huge.
And I was listening to Stuart's book, and I have a hard copy of it well, and he spends about three or four chapters going through and telling us what these kings are doing. Well, now he's probably not going to accept the decree that 40 percent of his interpretations are wrong, but he's going to have to because Victor Montejo is a Mayan scholar. And as you know, you've heard him, he is an actual living Maya from the Guatemalan biosphere, the jungle. The other thing, and I've spoken a little bit about this, and this happens a lot with archaeologists. When they find kings that are older than say three, perhaps maybe closer to 4,000 years old, it's immediately relegated to mythology. Why? Because the dates are so extreme in some of these cases. And we see this now with Maya kings, and this is a chapter that I'm currently working on. When the dates go back nine, 10, 15,000 years, and this is what we're seeing on some of these decipherments, they are considered true kings. They're considered mythological kings.
And the reason being is that those dates are too extreme. So this is sad. So because they come up with the date of nine or 10 or deep, deep antiquity, they're automatically considered myth kings, ancient spiritual kings, fantasy kings. We see the same thing in Egypt with the king's list in Egypt. We see the same thing with the king's list in Sumeria. And Egyptologists don't want to go there. They don't want to talk about a king in Sumeria that's a hundred thousand years old. Because that means that there was societies, there were modern people that were ancient.
Now, we need some kind of a decipherment tool that allows us to go further back and anticipate greater ages. We're going to need to find some more credible evidence. And the cuneiforms, the clay tablets, we haven't deciphered them completely. And there's still more to be found. There's libraries. Now, I think what has to happen with Sumeria is that you need to continually find kings that are referenced, that go back 50, 60, 100,000 years in the past.
I don't know how we worked it out with the Maya, but I think it's the same thing, where we find credible evidence describing these kings. And as you know, we only have about 13 to 1500 known ruins, known cities, compiled. Well, there are tens of thousands waiting to be excavated. And so if we see a reference to, say, King Phillips or King Pacal, and we know Pacal was the king at Palenque. If we were to see a Pacal reference 10,000 years ago, immediately it would be considered mythology. But if we see vases, we see relief sculptures, we see wall murals depicting him and his court, then they have to begin waking up. So this is probably going to be more evidentiary referencing with artifacts. So, and I'm trying to figure out a way to break it in. But I have to say this, I'm very warm, I'm very happy to learn that they have been excavating and finding great evidence for ancient kings and the government. This is what I'm writing about right now. The Maya had a specific government and specific types of decrees to get work done, which is fascinating. So more to come on that. But hey, big news, 40 percent of the current archaeological decipherment is wrong. And that's huge. Well, I want to hear more about that. My guest today is Jonathan Dickinson, and he has written a book about a plant medicine, a psychedelic called Ibogaine, that we're going to learn about today, and the healing effects of this product, and the healing effects for our veterans who come back with traumatic brain injuries and PTSD and other neurological disorders that are just not working, not being healed by current therapy. And so Ibogaine is not really legal in the United States, but as we'll hear from Jonathan, it is a powerful tool for healing. So today's program is Ibogaine and the Bicameral Mind, and my guest is author Jonathan Dickinson.