Ahhhh, the sweet irony of culturing a discussion on the cultural insignificance of anything!!!

Denial of significance is also a lending of significance:

A Pair O Docks, floating in waters infinite and deep.


JBArk

A Pair O Docks... or... A Pair Of Ducks?

Personally, I disagree too. If you take those lessons you get from the other realm and live them, breathe them, be them, you share them with everyone and everything you interact with, intentionally or not.

The messages I get from the "other side" have taught me how to be a much more nurturing person and respectful of my impact on the planet in terms of the resources I consume. I learned that many of the things i want are not always what i need. They taught me the importance of restraint in a society of consumption. They taught me that i am a part of nature and being a part of nature means nurturing and sustaining life of animals and, most importantly, plants.

This has impacted the people I meet and spend time with. They recognize what is in my heart and it gives them courage to let what is in their heart show too. It is contagious and informative without being preachy or interventionist. You show other ways of living are possible and that has real impact in my experience. It gives hope in an otherwise bleak and disenfranchising world. In that way, it changes the culture of a society.

Be the change you want to see in the world as Mahama Ghandi said. Look at the mountains he moved!

People always talk about how dmt, ayahuasca, mushrooms, peyote have healed them, physically, emotionally, socially and opened their minds. That is pretty significant and it changes the world little by little, person by person. The danger comes from feeling defeated and deciding what is possible before you even try... Or giving up too easily when the going gets tough.

Just my two cents here, your milage may vary. There are many ways to live in this world.

McKenna just meant modern mainstream western culture - not culture in general.

Which I acknowledged in my initial post (and really it's more than "modern" or "mainstream" or "western" culture), but also pointed out that he (and, perhaps, more problematically, many people who use that quote) did a less than stellar job of explicitly articulating that distinction, to my memory.

Whoa hey there I'm not disputing that. I was primarily responding to SKA's comment about losing respect for TMK because of how he interpreted his view of culture.

By saying that "culture is not your friend", McKenna wanted to say that all cultures are based on arbitrary usurpation of truth by telling us what to think and what to do. All cultures (western, aboriginal, pre-industrial etc.) make certain demands and as such are inherently oppressive to individuals. All cultures work like that - they make us obey certain rules, hold certain beliefs etc...

In his writings and talks, McKenna was refering to "culture" as to a general anthropological concept: collective system of norms, beliefs, habits and rules of conduct. As such, all cultures (i.e. particular systems of norms and beliefs) always subject individuals to its authority (in the name of "tradition", true religion, "will of the ancestors" etc.) and are, therefore, in a sense oppressive.

In this sense, McKenna thought of psychedelics as something that inherently goes "against" (any) culture: the power of psychedelics lies in their ability to reveal that all cultures sre based on arbitrary osurpation of power.

Culture is not our friend, because it tells us what to believe in, how to behave and what to do. Psychedelics, on the other hand, demask this as a form of power/oppression, and "liberate" us from the rule of our culture. This applies to all cultures. Psychedelics will make (sooner or later) everybody question any cultural program, any tradition, any authority etc...

In the Amazon, McKenna observed that shamans were always marginal people living on the fringes of the villages, often despised by official authorities, feared by the majority of the society. It is because they "opted out" of their culture by means of massive use of psychedelics. It is because shamans have power, by the use of their psychedelics, to "see through culture", to "see through" various games of social power (relations of dominance-submission upon which all societies are based on) etc...

That´s why I think McKenna thought that psychedelics can never become integral part of any culture: because they give one a power to question all dogmas, traditions, beliefs and other BS upon which all large-scale societies are based on.

(Thats how I understand McKenna´s "culture is not your friend" mantra)

Very well said, that adds quite a bit of clarity. What's funny is that I knew the basics of what you just said, as I've listened to a very large amount of his material as I'm sure many here have and the basics of what you just said have been covered in his talks for sure, but, I'm definitely not always able to integrate everything I hear and/or think about (thought processes catalyzed by his talks) - so this was something I obviously didn't integrate as well as I now have, thanks to you Michal_R.

My initial post was an attempt to bring a little clarity to the discussion on that matter, but it really just opened the door for you to come and really make way for clarity.

This is a pretty shaky (and overgeneralized) assertion, imo.

Not only are shamans not "always marginalized people," the notion that they "see through...various games of social power" and therefore don't play them (or whatever other conclusions might be drawn from such a claim) not only strikes me as an industrialized romanticization of "shamans" on the whole, but also runs contrary to numerous ethnographies and personal accounts (Oly Mon has some great stories along these lines) that present shamanic characters as engaging wholeheartedly in such endeavors.

As to the statements regarding psychedelics and culture...cultures that come to mind in immediate rebuttal include:
The UDV
The Santo Daime
The NAC
The Shipibo
The Nexus
Any other culture that includes the ritual (or other) use of psychedelics

Culture is not just present in "large-scale societies". Culture, as an anthropological concept, is a byproduct of human interactions. The dualistic notion that, big-C, Culture is either "your friend" or "not your friend" is flimsy at best, and certainly lacks any nuanced analysis of culture, in either a broad conceptual sense or a localized ethnographic sense.

I do see what the OP means, that in the eye of the storm there is no way to communicate this experience through any ordinary medium. Short of telepathy the dmt experience can't really be touched by words or ideas. It is a feeling that dmt gives and thus you cant share that feeling through words alone, but only through the experience itself. And although it is subjective and unique for everyone I believe, there are also elements of similarity which is why we can share our ideas about the experience to some extent. That is we can talk about what we think about how the experience makes us feel. While the peak of the experience may take place in a realm distant from language and culture it seems nonetheless connected. So like climbing a mountain or doing anything for that matter we can talk about it, but you can't share the feeling unless we share the experience itself. I am not sure if this is where the OP is coming from, but this is what I got from it.

this! ^

Maybe it is, I don´t know. But it still is my understanding of what McKenna was writing and talking about. I really think that McKenna believed that with the use of psychedelics, we can move "beyond" (any) culture, and get in touch with... the Divine (or how to call it)...



Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

This whole debate of course rests on what exactly do we mean by "culture" (for example: is UDV a culture, or a religious institution?) Let us not forget that "culture" is not a "thing out there", but a concept (a notion that was invented and put into our minds) to describe and understand human (inter)action. Even this very debate on "cultural significance of DMT" rests on how do we understand/define culture.

I think it is culturally significant. I believe every country has different entheogens, that they have shaped the development of beliefs since the dawn of time. Look at the Temples of India, their gods. Look at the Intricately designed carved interiors of the mosques in the middle East, look at the Ayahuasca traditions in South America, look at the Temples of Egypt with the many depictions of the lotus flower in their interior carvings. Yup, dmt, Caapi, Rue, marijuanna, Datura, Morning Glory, Opium, etc, you name it, have all been culturally significant in the development of ancient cultures, which effect current culture, and can still be found in use today.

Ok, maybe you're right if you're saying that the Governments would in general try ansd say 'there is no longer any place for these entheogens', but In fact many people are trying to spread awareness and get many of these currently illegal entheogens legalised in more countries, etc.

yogurt?

Exactly lol

I don´t want to burden this debate by becoming too scientific and/or sounding too obscurant, but "culture" (IMO) should really be understood as a "concept for understanding", rather than "a thing out there". There are even anthropologists (who study "cultures", right?) who refuse to use the concept of culture, because according to them it obscures rather than explains social reality, has multiple meanings that are mutually incommensurable, and thus prevents us from debating and understanding each other

(just look at this debate...)

(DMT*profound effect% on individual)/cause and effect= the sum of cultural significance.

I am still working on a simple equation for the significance of DMT on yoghurts.(but DMT may have played a role in me not knowing which way to spell yog(h)urt).

First...as a brief aside...


As someone who has spent a lot of time in anthropological circles, in addition to holding a degree in the field, I find much of what you are saying regarding anthropological views on culture to be flat out wrong.

I'd be interested in knowing what anthropologists you are referring to (I don't doubt they exist...just curious as to who you are specifically calling out here). I'd also posit that they are the minority, certainly not the yardstick by which to measure the discipline. Finally, what discipline refers to culture as "a thing out there"? Certainly not Anthropology...

---

Now onto the meat and potatoes



But this is, at best, a temporary dissolution. Certainly you would not attempt to declare that the ritual use of psychedelics somehow permanently supercedes or brings cultural members outside of the cultural context in which they are using these psychedelics, would you? By definition (whatever definition you chose, however academic or colloquial), culture is a byproduct of human interactions. Humans living and interacting in a shared space generate culture, whether or not they use psychedelics.


Right...but again, this is not a permanent transcendence. Mckenna even specifies here, "in this domain of perturbed brain chemistry the cultural operating system is wiped clean." These people still live together and share cultural practices, one of which is the ingestion of powerful psychedelics. There is still culture, by whatever definition you choose to apply.


Not really...there are some very simple tenets that are generally agreed upon as foundational to culture. This sort of semantic wriggling is what I attempted to preempt earlier when skipping the academic history of "what is culture" and posting the wikipedia definition for shorthand reference. If you disagree with the definition posted earlier in this thread, my question would be why and on what grounds.


Both. This isn't even a question as far as I'm concerned. There is culture within a religious institution. No need for dualities, imo.


Culture is a concept (as is much of reality) that has been defined, refined, and utilized in order to give us understanding about the world around us. There are consensually accepted definitions for culture within disciplines such as Anthropology, Sociology, etc. To pretend that this is some semantically variable term to which we can apply whatever meaning we wish is academically dishonest. Is there some malleability within the term? Certainly. Is there the level of variance you seem to propound? I think not.

In the initial quote, Mckenna made no distinction, even though (as I pointed out way back in the thread) there's good evidence he was addressing problematic aspects of "dominant culture." In the new quote, Mckenna specifically delimits cultural dissolution to the psychedelic experience and does not appear to make larger claims regarding the psychedelic experience dissolving the cultural context in which it is occurring, outside of the immediate experience. This is logical, as the psychedelic experience is taking place within a culture context.

Ultimately, I don't care whether Mckenna is "right" or "wrong"...the concepts being discussed are far more important than whether or not they support some guy's opinion. However, for the sake of this discussion, Mckenna does not seem to be making as grand a claim as you attribute to him...and if he were, I would still strongly disagree with the assertion.

It is nice to know that you hold a degree in anthropology. It is perfectly fine if you don´t agree with me - at least we can keep this debate going on :-) I hold a degree in anthropology as well and therefore it kind of surprises me how directive you seem to be with regard to one of the most contested concepts in contemporary anthropology. Calling existing debates (not my own personal ideas - I got them from reading journals and books) "flat out wrong" is not fair IMO.




This is not about "applying whatever meaning we wish"; it is about making a debate possible: to understand what do we mean by terms we use. I don´t understand why this is seen as a problem. In science, defining concepts is not an obstacle, but a condition of possiblity of doing science and having a fruitful dialogue. It is not about "whatever meaning", but about establishing a meaning that we mutually agree upon. Only this makes further debate possible.

During my academic carreer I learned how really difficult it is to step out of a tradition one has been brought up in (to step out of one´s culture, right?). I understand why many people think that anthropology without the concept of culture simply cannot exist. Yet we know that the concept of "culture" has its history: it got into American anthropology from the tradition of German romanticism via Franz Boas and his students who were using the concept of culture to fight against evolutionism and other kinds of academic racism. But please consider other traditions (outside of American and German lagnuage area) that think about human society in different terms.

And the "dishonesty" thing... I don´t think it is dishonest to question that what most people believe in. Holding a different opinion doesn´t make one dishonest, IMO.



These academics might be a minority in American anthropology, I don´t know, but... so what? Does being a minority make your approach less legitimate?

With regard to concrete authors/schools/traditions, just few examples:

- American tradition (what about Lila Abu-Lughod and her "Writing against culture"?)
- Scandinavian tradition (what about Unni Wikan´s "Culture - a New concept of Race" and debates that followed?)
- British tradition is called "social anthropology" (and not cultural anthropology) for a reason: its core concept is not culture but society. British tradition has its roots in French theory:
- French tradition: No need for "culture" here (in France, "culture" semantically refers to "high culture": art, civilization, cultivation etc). Look into a history of social anthropology in France: Durkheim and Mauss - no culture needed to understand how societies function and reproduce. Consider Pierre Bourdieu and his students, etc.

I am not saying that anyone should agree with me. I just would like people to at least recognize that there are alternative approaches to the problem.

I misunderstood your initial statement regarding challenging culture's usefulness (clarified by the authors who you have provided). After seeing the list presented (while I do have some quibbles with the statements re: Durkheim and Social Anthropology), I now comprehend what you are saying and retract my earlier statements (wholeheartedly...including/especially the "minority" statement). Thanks for clarifying

However, the challenging of culture as a productive concept (something with which I don't disagree, especially along the lines laid out by Abu-Lughod) does not negate the definition(s) that have been created. Nor does it prevent us from targeting the same components presented as "culture" for discussion through other more specific/less abstracted lenses (pointing back to the definition of culture to examine the components therein for examination in locales more specific than "culture" delimited by time/space/people/etc.) as in the case of the effects of DMT or other entheogens.

---

I don't fully understand why you didn't comment on the earlier discussion and split off into academic history. Personally, as I said earlier, I'm really not interested in that discussion, and if that's the one you're intent on having, I'll let you know now that I will be bowing out of the discussion (no hard feelings, just not something I wish to spend time on ).


Precisely.

And, as a working definition was already laid out in this thread (which I invited you to critique earlier) I really don't understand the point of your previous post.

I'm really not interested in holding a space that considers the myriad of possible interpretations. I'm interested in working definitions, as anything else is, imo, mental masturbation. If people involved in this discussion wish to modify a working definition for this discussion, they should do so, as it will facilitate this discussion. Statements that imply that we cannot have this discussion because we aren't considering every single way of being/understanding reality don't facilitate anything other than intellectual mind fog, imo.

---

So, now, to jump back a few posts (and perhaps this will help explain some of my frustration with this deviation) there is a definition of culture that has been introduced to this thread. With this definition in hand, the notion that "culture is not your friend [full stop]" or that psychedelics completely dissolve cultural operating systems (outside of their immediate effects) has been challenged, and has not been rebutted in any meaningful way, imo.

Now, whether or not culture is a concept that creates problematic relationships/ethnographies, reinforces hierarchies and self/other relationships, the components of culture can be discussed in more concrete/less generalized ways, yes? We can talk about these components without engaging the broader critique of culture (at least in this case) because that is the vein in which they were initially posited.

McKenna did not say "culture is not your friend" because he was wary of creating an analytical framework that resulted in domineering hierarchies and othering people (even if he was), but because he was talking about problematic elements that he saw within dominant culture. When McKenna talked about the psychedelic experience dissolving cultural operating systems, he was not giving a meta-critique of the concept of culture, but was talking about the dissolution of cultural components (whether generalized or not).

This was a man obsessed with the creation and dissemination of symbols and memes (cultural components, no?). His critique was of cultural components, not the overarching concept, as I understood it, and that's the context in which the quotes should be engaged if they are to have any meaning, imo.