I am simmering 40g of ACRB and will later be simmering 8g of Syrian Rue (both of these ingredients will be halved for two doses).

When I simmer, even at a low temperature, there is heavy evaporation. I should just be adding water, right?

Instead of 3 hours for the ACRB for 3 times, I will be doing 2 hours each of the 3 times; I know this is not optimal, but it should cut it, right?

For the Syrian Rue, I don't need to powderize or otherwise crush the seeds, right? I plan to just going to simmer them for about an hour or so. Sound good?

https://www.dmt-nexus.me....aspx?g=posts&t=8972

ACRB dosage would be similar to that of MHRB

I should also add that I will be adding 2 egg whites during my final simmer.

I don't agree with that statement.

OneEyeAscension perhaps you could extrapolate?


Primordium, i would recommend you put in some research as to ACRB dosage, 20 g of rootbarks sound like a overkill to me. A simple search should yield results

I think that for a first brew your on the steep side with the acrb. Read the tread that was linked by LeftEyeOfHorus.



Please elaborate a bit more, just stating i don´t agree is not very helpful.

thanks

I have Acacia Confusa inner root bark, and it's just as potent as Mimosa inner root bark. So i can only assume that the whole Acacia root is just as powerful as the whole Mimosa root. So whatever the dosages are for Mimosa whole root bark (not inner root bark), then that should be similar to the dosage for Acacia whole root bark.

This is not ayahuasca, but that preperation should work out fine. Ayahuasca is a term specific to a brew made from specific amazonian plants. Sorry if I sound like I am nitpicking.

Language evolves.

I just find "ayahuasca analogue" to be cumbersome and unnecessary. Saying "ayahuasca" has its own confusions, too (since it is also technically the word for only one of the ingredients).

Primordium, are you saying your dosage would be 20g ACRB?

Yes.

I suspected my ACRB was weak because a previous batch was weak/non-effective (from a different time but same source); turns out, I was right: even this new brew did nothing but make me nauseous and vomit.

20g was the ACRB dose that triggered a hyperslap beatdown experience for me. Now, this situation may have been more about state of mind than dosage, but I doubt I will EVER dose that high again...lessons learned

Perhaps your material is weak, as you mentioned, but, perhaps not. I'd recommend being very careful with that brew..

Sorry, but no.

A brew made out of just ayahuasca vine, with nothing else in it, is ayahuasca regardless of whether or not there's another plant (or thirty) in the brew.

Ayahuasca is not orally active DMT. Ayahuasca, is ayahuasca. Regardless of whether "ayahuasca analogue" is cumbersome or not, it is correct.

"Ayahuasca" is a word for just the vine. Ayahuasca is also the word for the vine and more. Linguistically, those are two separate referents for one term. In other words, ambiguity is inherently present.

This is idiosyncratic to their language and pervasive: other items are also named after only an individual ingredient. They've installed ambiguity into their language; I think ambiguity about whether you used Syrian Rue or Banisteriopsis caapi is not particularly troublesome. Just call it ayahuasca and we can sort out the details if necessary.

I'm ready to be an etymological frontiersman here. I don't think the Language Police are going to bust me. I think, generally, "pharmahuasca" refers to an extracted/synthesized admixture and "ayahuasca" refers to a natural combination of DMT and an MAOI.

The fact that this discussion comes up so much shows that "ayahuasca" is an evolving term in English. I'm not particularly concerned about Language Mavens: http://www.basesproduced.com/201/handouts/Pinker.pdf. I think the issue here is more linguistic than shamanic or ancestral or anthropological or whatever.

I greatly respect people that are attempting to honor these people, their history, and the botanical knowledge thay have generated. I just find this a linguistics issue, and I side with evolutionary changes (e.g., people that use "literally" figuratively are just fine by my lights). In the words of Jen Doll, "As long as language is changing, people will peeve, and as long as people can communicate, language will change."

P.S. Of course, if moderators specifically or this community in general prefers to enforce consensus, that's another matter.

You could just use the term "anahuasca". It's not cumbersome, it's more specific, and it preserves the native connotations of the word "ayahuasca".

I do agree, though, that the meaning of the word "ayahuasca" in english has evolved to generally mean any simple water extracted preparation of natural plants containing DMT and MAO-A inhibitors, as well as any other admixture plants, intended to make DMT orally active.

Nothing like a healthy dose of cultural appropriation to whet the imperial palate, eh?

Somehow I've missed the neologism "anahuasca"! I'll bee using that from now on.

Yeah, I kind of felt like a dick when I was suggesting my proposal, too.

I don't think there's any need for enforcement...language has a way of doing what it will and people use language for many different purposes, effectively rendering enforcement useless (along with most forms of censorship, generally speaking, imo).

I just think when we are talking about ayahuasca in English or any other non-native term that has different cultural significance attached, it's very important to consider the effects of language beyond being a medium to convey ideas. Imo, this becomes even more important when dealing with indigenous, minority, or oppressed groups in general, given a global context of colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.

First and foremost the word "ayahuasca" in english has no meaning...no context...no history. It's not an english word. Afaik, short of various bastardizations of ayahuasca (mimosahuasca, anahuasca, acaciahuasca, haomahuasca, etc) there has never been an english term that referred to ayahuasca, as either vine or brew (B. caapi is latin ). The point being that the word ayahuasca was taken out of its original context (as frequently happens with language) and used by a plethora of people to mean whatever they felt like applying it to.

In some senses, this is what it is, and is how language has functioned frequently throughout history. However, at the same time, this steamrolling of the traditional context(s) and meaning(s) by (generally speaking) white(r) folks from the global north and/or who live in industrial contexts creates pressures and situations that jeopardize the traditionally understood meaning(s) of these indigenous terms.

While language generally grows, morphs, and fits itself into new words, syntaxes, and situations, I would posit that there are cases where historical domination cannot be removed from the equation and presents for consideration, issues regarding the "sanctity" of traditional words and their meanings when viewed through the lens of oppressor/oppressed.

We cannot escape the history of colonialism and its effects on people around the globe. We cannot escape the horrific histories and presents that have stemmed from colonialism. We can, however, examine our actions in the present and attempt to situate them in the least detrimental ways we see possible.

Essentially, my point is that when it comes down to what indigenous terms mean in English, I think it's best to stick to w/e cultural variations we know to traditionally exist, even if there are discrepancies and disagreements among cultures or subcultural groups as to the terms at hand (as there almost always will be). This is not out of any desire for greater accuracy, this is because, imo, it's not our place to determine the meaning of words that don't belong to us. I have no cultural, familial, or historical tie to ayahuasca, so I can't possibly understand the significance of altering any traditional meaning(s) of the term.

These sorts of discussions really bum me out. It reminds me of a discussion that took place at the MAPS conference last year, labelled the "Ayahuasca Researchers Discussion," that included a bunch of experts on ayahuasca in various contexts. At one point, the conversation became about indigenous opinions on ayahuasca and essentially turned into a bunch of people from northern/industrial contexts stating "the indigenous want this," "the indigenous think that," "the indigenous believe X."

When I was finally given a moment to speak, I questioned, "Where are the indigenous? I hear a lot of people talking about what the indigenous want and what they think and the need for discussion with them...but you are not discussing with them, you are talking about them. You can't have a conversation with one party absent, you can't dialog about what you think someone wants and claim to represent their interests. If you really want to have an open/honest discussion about these issues, you have to include the people you are talking about, and start listening. Anything less is a charade of a conversation at best" (or something more or less to that effect)

The point is, here we are again. A bunch of privileged folks from northern/industrial backgrounds arguing over the meaning of indigenous terms. People are obviously going to call it what they want. I think anahuasca might be a decent term for all forms of "ayahuasca" (heh...see, now what other term could I stick here to simply indicate my meaning?) created outside of a traditional context, for a myriad of reasons.

Ultimately, I'd just like to see some consideration about the sociocultural implications of steamrolling the linguistic nuances of words taken from other cultures, especially when it's folks from imperial/colonial backgrounds that are so blase about such steamrolling. These are more than words we are talking about here.

Apologies for the major hijack <3

Incredibly wise post!

I am going to try and revisit your post from time to time.