![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
hi there, I am very familiar with Wicca, Shamanism, Entheogens, Psychonautics, and so forth from activities in those groups of people, and my own personal practices.
I think that theres a broader and deeper issue here which is also a problem with accuracy in the "Entheogens" article, and I don't want to go nutty all over the place, esp not as a total newbie, but the fact of the matter is, there ar two types of "Psychonaut"
- Those who have found a kewl new gimmick to justify their drug habits
- Those who are serious practicioners of Shamanism and Psychonautics in the more literal sense, and who _may_ or _may not_ use Entheogens
as part of their total program.
The internet and pop culture are of course rife and well populated with the first sort, but its kind of an insult to the second class or group to assume that Psychonauts use Entheogens...
In a way, of course, its just kids and wannabes playing with a new toy that is the real problem. A lot like a similar problem of ignorant "Satanists" wearing pentagrams and calling themselves "Witches" when they have no right to claim that and no real knowledge whatsoever to operate from.
This is complicated in this instance by the reality that a great many alleged "psychonauts" do have deep and insightful knowledge about chemistry and their drugs. However, to be a genuine psychonaut, one would be using Entheogenic protocols either taken from Native Shamanism or developed with a very lucid understanding of modern psychology. The Lucid goal of Entheogenic use is to open a door which the Psyche learns. Through the use of Hypnosis and post Hypnotic Suggestions, Similar states of consciousness can be obtained _without_ the use of the Entheogen. This may be a smaller factor in Entheogens such as Marijuana or Mushrooms, but I assure you that the Entheogenic protocols of say for instance Datura were one time only Shamanic rites of passage- Even the Shamans knew that Datura is extremely toxic, and potentially lethal if used multiple times to the Liver. (Ingesting any physical chunk of datura is rolling a d6 with your life. Ingesting the Tea made from boiling small amounts will be lethal in the long run if its done with any degree of frequency.)
Perhaps more importantly, all claims of "Entheogenic Use" are null and void outside of the Shamanic context.
I know that there are 100 irresponsible drug feinds out there that will beg to differ, and even that the Entheogenic community itself has been less than responsible, but honestly, I'm telling you the truth. You don't even need to use Entheogens at all to be a Psychonaut- A Psychonaut is Just someone who explores the Psyche.
Wow.
editWell thanks. I'm just wondering if you have any resources to back up this assumption; or am I just suppose to assume that you're totally right about the definitions that you supported and take your work on what it means to a psychonaut simply because your say so. Please don't mention the "drug community"; the notion that we gather around in large groups and plot against the non-drug users is laughable. There is no more a "drug community" than there is a "beer community". We don't gravitate towards other drug users simply because they happen to share a few of our interests. You make these "fact of the matter" claims as though you were given the authority and juristiction to do so by god itself. I'm not sure what makes you think that it's you who decides what the two "types of psychonauts" are. It's not your position to dictate whether or not "satanists" and "witches" are true occultists simply because your brand on metaphysical ritualism isn't the same as there. We're here to make articles; if you want to go and rant about how much you hate drugs and how drug users are gambling with their life (and whether they do so or not, additionally, is irrelevant to their status as a "psychonaut" or a shaman) you should probably head on down to freevibe or something. Claims of "entheogenic use" are exactly that, and amount to little more than entheogenics being utilized, regardless of the user's intentions. You're not "telling the truth", as you insist - you're making very provocative and strong statements about truth without even supplying an aiota of evidence.