Because most of them in their hearts know that that place is a pit



I would have to agree. I'm aware that by being raised in a Christian culture it has affected me. The first blend of changa that I ever made using Chaliponga gave me an experience of a "possession trance" and while I loved it, and gained a great deal from me, scared the hell out of me and I find that my most intimidating blend of changa as a result.

One love

Voidmatrix wrote:

..this is i think why various African, and other including Tamil and Asian, cultures have built up these models of supervised safe possession trance..with tools of certain music, with the 'priests' and 'priestesses' taking care of the energetic field around the person going into trance..making sure the 'right' entities turn up..but a common theme around such models is the degree of secrecy until one enters the model..a lot of the skills they bring or have acquired over generations, are entity identification and mapping..
the largest example of modern entity mapping i can think of is the DMT nexus..and it is potentially more relevant in the modern cross-cultural age, as more than locally observed entities are described..

re Christianity - i think we can also consider that 'Christianity' is a pretty broad spectrum...from yes, the ignorant, aggressive and not internally spiritual evangelists, through to true visionaries...

OneIsEros wrote:

..well..i think the layers of 'christian' need unpacking here..

many indigenous people took on christianity externally in order to 1) survive and 2) understand if there was any spiritual wisdom at all in the white man's book...some thought there was, but approach it from what would be crudely called a more polytheistic view..

as they used to say of Haiti...it's 99% christian and 100% voudou..and in India, Jesus is worshipped as a saint or deity along with thousands of gods or 'entities'.. or maestros sing to Santa Maria as well as forest spirits..it can also be an inclusive approach...most ancient traditions still evolved over time to bring in new ideas, new plants etc...it's only the Patriarch's Book that can make things become frozen, stagnant and ignorant.. and there are those who follow the more mystical side of true early christianity, before it became a franchise in Rome..

pre-christian traditions are not necessarily 'sexier'...they can also be more devout

i think the 'Psychedelic Wisdom' question can be a bit like '42', the 'answer' from Deep Thought
...but what exactly was the question?

https://m.youtube.com/wa...bm5hIG1lZGljaW5lcw%3D%3D

“He didn’t think of them as medicines.”

She discusses Terence beginning around 1:30. I can search through other videos with McKenna himself, but it would take time. I’ll just rattle off some things I’ve heard from him over the years, forgive me if I quote him wrongly. “I am a materialist, of some sort.” “In indigenous cultures they tell the individual with schizophrenia, you are not crazy, you will heal people!”

He may have respected curanderos and curanderas he met, but he didn’t adopt the model, or really seem to understand it, or perhaps he just seriously misunderstood what schizophrenia is. And hey, not adopting a shamanic worldview is fine. But it is intriguing and part of a larger trend of folk not learning from the cultures that have well established traditions with these things, and instead looking elsewhere, whether that elsewhere is either inwardly or outwardly or both.

Interesting. Another divide in views for us that I'd like to explore.

I have a lot of Terence recordings, and I'll have to relisten to many, but I could've sworn that I've heard him refer to entheogens as medicines in lectures about shamanism. But like it would be for you, it would take me some time.

He admittedly didn't adopt their model, largely because he was so adamant about being non-dogmatic. I recall him also saying that he was a skeptic, and he liked trying to prove things wrong, for when he couldn't, then he was able to see in a new way and have some of his skepticism assuaged. Something that psychedelics brought him.

I think he also saw schizophrenia in a different light than others, but perhaps did understand it. Some of this position also seems to have roots in his personal qualms with certain western modalities like drug laws, big pharma, and mental health in the west and how it is treated.

I think that some people learn from the sources that are of consideration to you, but cannot fully adopt the models because of their own cultural background and thinking predicated on that. Others perhaps are unable to relate in order to learn more from such cultures. Some may want to figure things out on their own.

I think trust is a big thing here to, which I've mentioned before.

One love

I mean sure, but recognizing the problematic nature of Western medicine and ideas around mental health is a far cry from “shamans are people whose schizophrenia is celebrated”. It just ain’t so. Actually, it is less challenging the Western models, and more so is in line with what those institutions in their early days claimed about psychedelics producing simulated psychosis - the “psychotomimetic” model of psychedelic use. So, less challenging the notion, and more just affirming it and then with a big grin giving it a thumbs up. An improvement in attitude perhaps, but not a real rethinking of the conception. Also would probably go hand in hand with his basic rejection of psychedelics being medicines.

-edit- I may be being unfair here. He does discuss acknowledging a shaman doing curing work here. He also, in a happy coincidence, notes that he’s not entirely convinced that schizophrenia maps onto this. That’s one of the things about being recorded for countless hours doing nothing but musing. Contrary perspectives are bound to be contemplated.

https://m.youtube.com/wa...ygUPVGVyZW5jZSBtY2tlbm5h

OneisEros..on schizophrenia, i think you're missing Terence's humour..and believe me he was a funny guy

he thought the real curanderos were masters

it just wasn't his journey to study being a curandero

I had a friend that studied curanderoism with the Shipibo in the 90s..the requirement was a 7 year apprenticeship before being able to 'serve'..
(the standards for qualification seem to have since dropped)
but that's studying properly in the old way..
Terence didn't have the time for that...he was world culture guy..
if he'd spent 7 years studying to be a curandero, many people may never have heard of DMT

incidentally, by DSM III and DSM IV diagnosis, all curanderos are schizophrenic/psychotic..
and so are most nexus members

Yeah, I'm kind of pointing at the idea that it's hard to pin down concretely how he felt about certain things. He spoke in a very convincing way, but was mindful to provide caveats to a lot of his statements; "It's just me, but..." "This is just my experience," etc. It's the way he states things thereafter that sound much more objective in nature. I think also, like with many thinkers (and people in general) that some of his views and theories changed over time.

Think I'll have to listen to Alien Dreamtime later



That's pretty funny

One love

Mmm, he joked about he himself having schizophrenia, but I don’t think he was entirely kidding about psychosis indicating shamanic ability, which is reminiscent of early concepts of psychedelics as “psychotomimetic”. I don’t think even those earlier forms of the DSM would diagnose shamans as schizophrenics. I could be wrong, it’s not my area of expertise, but I get the sense that that distinction has been known for quite some time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEglHjd_gUQ

..in first year university, my friends and i noted that according to the DSM III, multiple ocurrances of a number of 'symptoms' could be diagnosed as psychotic/schizophrenic...these included things like belief in spirits, communicating with entities, mystical beliefs, belief in telepathy, having visions or going into trance states..we laughed we'd have to diagnose ourselves as psychotic..and the problem obviously was there's a very fine line here, for practical diagnosis

in the inadequate framework of modern psychiatry, especially back in the 80s/90s, curanderos (ayahuasceros), shamans (meaning Asia) are all technically schizophrenic..i think that's the point Terence was trying to get at..especially to his audience at the time, some of these statements were classic Terence 'one-liners' that brought laughter to the audience..when it's transcribed to writing something gets lost..

he admitted that some part of him still believed in scientific rationalism..
but also admitted there were things he could not explain...that's why he put the questions out there in the world..

i was fortunate enough to spend a day with him..most of the time he talked about either curanderos and their skills, which he marvelled at, or his kids, who he loved..or different plants..and he was always interested in cultures in the world whose pyschedelic wisdom was unknown or ignored..and he never claimed to know the answers, only to have good questions and the odd joke

...i can still hear him laughing from hyperspace..

(but the shrink is gonna say that's schizophrenic )

Voidmatrix wrote:

i agree that's a path that's most realistic for many in this day and age..plus, things seem to be moving to a new kind of planetary cross-cultural shared wisdom situation these past hundred years or so..and of course 'higher' wisdoms tend towards eventual non-duality
The Nexus will be evolving soon...but the collected knowledge here so far will continue to endure..all i think i can say on this topic has been said, and i really enjoyed a lot of the contributions, thanks, and thanks OneIsEros.. though i'm happy to keep discussing africa

just one thing i would add to round my comments off..i think from the gist of what i think is the kind of thing you're calling 'psychedelic' wisdom, OneIsEros, and seeking in the written, mass culturally accessible domain...there has been some very insightful anthropology done in the past 60 years, it's just not in mainstream print..

As an example, for the ayahuasqueros and curanderos who get brought up as examples so often, is: Portals of Power: Shamanism in South America, E. Jean Matteson Langdon, Gerhard Baer (editors) Uni of New Mexico Press (1992)

it gives some good overall perspectives on certain tribes, of the truly traditional pre-'curandero' contexts of ayahuasca and other often ignored plants...there's a range of settings, but its interesting to learn a bit about the 'tribal initiation' context of ayahuasca (if you want to get properly old school) , and the associated beliefs and cosmologies, which is not the same as the curandero curing the sick in the community context...gaining more of an overview helps people to form their own ideas about contexts and philosophies..you don't read a lot of this stuff in popular culture..

and there are good anthropological papers scattered throughout the academic world...they haven't really been correlated, compiled much for popular digestion..and and a lot have their more extensive field notes somewhere, if contacted...all in little bits and pieces..

They are still but incomplete fragments. Perhaps you're the one to put this scattered information together for the common good...
(I am writing, but it's another kind of book.. )

Finally, i unintentionally made a point when discussing Terence, on oral vs written tradition...that hearing someone in person is different to in text, and that people in person can divulge different knowledge than what they put in books..and only firsthand can we truly understand the contexts of some statements, due to historical cultural changes...

..i have to agree with Socrates, that people will not learn properly from a book

i wish Wisdom to all here

Thank-you for the references, I will have a look at that, if I can locate it.

I will admit, some of the reason for this post was cynicism, though not 100%. The reason for the slight cynicism is that the predominant models of psychedelic use in current medical adventures are passive: eyeshades, music, “hope you no longer fear death in six hours!”. On the less medical side, cultural commentators and philosophers and entertainers, who did great work as such, predominate. But while “set and setting” became part of our cultural knowledge, skillset generally did not. When it did, it was usually in the context of Eastern religions which advised “Okay, now you’ve gotten a glimpse… how about roll up your sleeves, stop doing drugs, and climb the mountain instead of helicoptering?”. It is in this model of passive receptivity to philosophical, mystical insight or revelation that Allan Watts’ “when you get the message, hang up the phone” advice makes sense - and only in this model. Once you successfully for the first time strum a chord on a guitar, you don’t stop practicing, if you want to be good at guitar.

I posted this because Nick Sand and Hamilton Souther are two figures I know of with some degree of celebrity in psychedelia who offered something different from this notion, and I didn’t see much else. I was genuinely hoping to see other resources along these lines whom I hadn’t heard of - but I also wanted to confirm whether it wasn’t just my own limited knowledge, that this sort of resource is genuinely not too available to our community in general. My hope, with the psychedelic renaissance, and the growing appreciation for living, bona fide psychedelic cultures (the Shipibo and also the Bwiti and many others), is that we will move into active, skilled use. Set, setting, and skillset.

-edit- That also doesn’t necessarily have to be something we develop in apprenticeship to cultures that have a longstanding tradition with these things - it just seems that that would be the most humble approach. I just kind of want that to be a stronger hunger in the community, because if the desire is there more strongly, I suspect individuals who could serve as teachers would become more prominent, perhaps even in clinical settings (there are some states in the US that are making headway toward opening up legal personal use as well as research again, two things which together might make something like that possible, while either of those elements alone might render such an enterprise less viable). California just two days ago passed a bill legalizing (not decriminalizing) personal possession, cultivation, and use of limited quantities of DMT, psilocybin, and mescaline, and also called into existence study groups for how to expand into other areas of legalization. Gavin Newsom has two weeks to veto it if he so chooses - if he doesn’t veto it in the next two weeks, it becomes legal.

Feeling this.

While I am required in ways to use the eyeshade method (because I'm with a clinic), while it can be helpful I find it limited and lacking. When I was underground guiding. I employed a lot more, allowing the eyeshades to be a catalyst for other things to come up. If it ends up being a session where I'm in interaction with the journeyer, then I'm engaged with them the whole time. I guide based on what occurs, not simply off of a protocol model. Nothing is off limits and anything can come up, which is why I feel there's more than one way to do this work. That said, sometimes it's a fully interactive practice, sometimes it's more passive.

I've also never been a proponent for "hanging up," which is predicated on the idea that you'll only need it once. This ideal runs its veins through all psychedelics (had a guy tell me a few months ago about his 5meo ceremony and how the guide said that it's only for people to do a few times in their lives...that seems dogmatic to me). But I see it how you do as a practice to be practiced. Skillset is huge and neglected amd is only derived from practice, inside and outside the psychedelic space.

One love

I also want to add something about the issue of writing.

I am a Plato nerd. I love Plato, and Aristotle, and Plotinus, and Iamblichus, and Proclus, and Dionysius, and all the others.

It is true that Plato believed that his explicit beliefs were not fit to be written - the Neoplatonists committed them to writing, or at least their understanding of them; but Plato himself thought it best not to write it out. In the 7th letter he said for it to work properly, you have to actively converse until a flash of insight arises, like flame after rubbing sticks for a long time.

I think there’s something to be said for that. But, there’s a very glaring contradiction here: Aristotle, his greatest student, disagreed. Aristotle very cavlierly, and usually dismissively, openly discussed Plato’s “unwritten doctrines”. It is thanks to Aristotle that the Tubingen school has come up with a fairly close approximation of what Plato probably taught (it’s pretty close to what the Neoplatonists taught; though not entirely the same, as the Neoplatonists also incorporated Aristotle into their work). While some have suggested that Aristotle did not understand his teacher, I personally find this unlikely. More likely, to me, would be that Aristotle simply trusted that people could do good active philosophical contemplation among themselves starting cold, so to speak - beginning simply with mere writing, without obscuration. Plato’s worry wasthat words were too inflexible, but it seems Aristotle was okay with leaving the need for revision or tempered, perhaps charitable consideration of unclear points, to the reader.

In another tradition, very different from Platonism, there is also a certain faith in words: Theravada Buddhism. While Zen and Vajrayana tend to emphasize the role of the Lama (Guru) or transmitting teacher (though this may not be as inflexible as it appears at first glance) - Theravada is pretty much just not into that. A teacher is very helpful, but, the Buddha told his followers: when I am gone, this Vinaya is your teacher (the Vinaya is the monastic codes). In other words: when things get slack, and there’s no one around of great repute, look at how the teachings say to act. Do that, hard, and you will learn. The Thai Forest Tradition did that. It was born out of a collection of monks who were extremely dissatisfied with the laxity of the Buddhist scene, and they did something unthinkable in Southeast Asian culture: they took the Buddha at his word, and practiced hard. It was grassroots, not an ancient lineage of transmissions of perfect practice, but taking a look at what was advised and doing it. The Korean tradition of Zen inaugurated by Chinul has a similar story - Chinul, unlike most figures in Zen history, did not receive transmission. Instead, like the Thai Forest monks, he organized a community of people who wanted rigorous practice, and they did it together.

I’m saying all of this because, I do want to acknowledge the impulse to “look within” that so many people here have expressed - while also noting that, like being a self-taught musician, checking out educative resources that may not be a personal teacher, can probably help too. Anything, so long as it is taken with discipline, I think can help in the development of skill. My only thing in all of this is just that…. I would like to see more hunger for that particular dimension of things. I phrased it as “wisdom” because I was also somewhat curious what people’s impression of that would mean when it comes to psychedelics. For my part, as it is now I think obvious, what it would mean to be a wise or learned user of psychedelics would be someone who, basically, can access their (literal) magical healing powers via a skillset. There can be and are other models of use, but when I think about what it would mean to really “know” these things, that to me seems like the sort of thing that indicates the deepest levels of understanding what they are.

What? They think we're crazy, only because we interact with entities they can't see?
But what if you told them there's a perfect explanation that they can't see them but we can: they're magical entities?

Humorous though this is, and still admitting I’d have to learn more to be sure, I still suspect psychologists have been generally aware for a long time that there is a distinction between psychosis and non-ordinary states of awareness. William James, who wrote “The Varieties of Religious Experience”, would have been a well known and respected figure among psychologists for half of a century already by the time the very first DSM book was published. Again, not my area of expertise, but, I suspect that while some aspects of “mystical/supernatural” experiences would overlap with symptoms of psychosis, that even in those primitive periods of psychology they would have to be coupled with more telltale signs of psychosis in order for clinicians to diagnose them as “psychotic”. That’s not to say it wouldn’t have happened…. I just suspect that it would have been a bad diagnosis even by their own standards, even at that time.

Psychology’s difficulty with the subject I think is less about them misunderstanding these states as being pathological, and more about them making sense of them in their own terms. So like, less them saying “you’re crazy!”, and more like nodding and saying “Ah, you think you’re speaking to spirits, but I know better - you are speaking to Jungian archetypes!” - or something like that. They don’t seem to think you’re having a break with reality, so much as misunderstanding a non-pathological experience. So without pathologizing they try to “put it back in your head”. Their model may have limited validity, or total validity, but I suspect their model is only limitedly valid. I think there’s just straight up withcraft. Either way though, I don’t take too much issue with that conceptual model of how it works, though I suspect it may hinder the range of development in skillsets. Shamans often take the drug while the patient remains sober. Materialist clinicians may have a tough time with that idea.

William James is not what psychology in the 20th century took as a leading cue..
There have been a lot of bad diagnosises..

..which are?


..One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Well, again, not a professional, but in my experience with people in psychosis, there’s deep agitation or alternatively megalomania, psychological incoherence, erratic behavior.

I contrast that with a guy like Hamilton Souther, who exudes nothing but deep calm, mindfulness, and attentive coherence. Shamans and mystics in general who I have seen interviewed are generally much the same.

OneIsEros...this tangent only happened because I was trying to explain Terence McKenna's joke..
it was a pretty well known issue back then that mainstream psychology couldn't account for most of these 'mystical' states...many shamans have spontaneous visions or talk to spirits...by all 20th C establishment psychology standard that's not 'sane', which is of course a concept defined by society and politically

The DSM III was a diagnostic manual..used by people employed to make decisions
There's even Substance Abuse Disorder #303.3x - Hallucinogen abuse

if you really want to understand by what methods people have been judged sane by the establishment, you can find it..was too big to attach

Again, not a psych major. But, I do know that for diagnoses in general, things that are signs and symptoms do not in and of themselves imply a diagnosis. At least in contemporary settings, certain numbers or constellations of symptoms must be present to result in diagnoses. They change those definitions periodically, but I’d be surprised if an individual symptom on its own would be sufficient criteria even on the older models. That doesn’t mean there weren’t problematic diagnoses or treatments historically, there were, I’m just saying I suspect a guy like Souther, even in older contexts, would not be diagnosed as psychotic were he analyzed clinically.

From DSM III on schizophrenia:

“The essential features of this group of disorders* are: the presence of certain psychotic features during the active phase of the illness, characteristic symptoms involving multiple psychological processes, deterioration from a previous level of functioning, onset before age 45, and a duration of at least six months. The disturbance is not due to an Affective Disorder or Organic Mental Disorder. At some phase of the illness Schizophrenia always involves delusions, hallucina- tions, or certain disturbances in the form of thought.“

Note: deterioration of function, and characteristic symptoms includimg multiple psychological processes, and a certain period of persistence are all mentioned here. Like I said, even in the heyday, a single symptom like a hallucination wouldn’t be sufficient for a diagnosis of something like schizophrenia, at least not according to the standards of practice. Is DSM III the best way to diagnose schizophrenia? Probably not; presumably they learned more since then. But even then, they would not have considered something like shamanic encounters with entities from a sober state to be necessarily a pathology. It could definitely indicate a pathology, but even then, it wouldn’t have been sufficient if the person wasn’t experiencing other things; like deterioration of general functioning (like what I was mentioning before).

..I don't even know where to begin OneIsEros..it's several diagnostic markers together to make a diagnosis...go through them all..

I'm not the establishment, I don't think shamans are psychotic...but the mainstream definitions back then kind of did. Terence was drawing attention to it

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is an example of what can happen on the ground in psychiatric institutions..

As for 'todays standards'...look at the 'mood stabilising' drugs they prescribe to kids like candy...look at the way they 'treat' depression..
It seems to be you either have some lofty ideas about the 'science' of psychology, or you're still not getting Terence's joke !