Some basic differences between psychonauts and Curandero's/Shaman.

[ganesh]

I would like to 'try' to state as simply as possible the basic differences between the psychonaut and Curandero/ Shaman. Links have been provided, so use them!


1. A psychonaut is a term that has a rather broad meaning, (to also include); someone on a curious yet 'lighthearted' path of self discovery, who uses various psychadelic or Entheogenic substances, for mind exploration, to either encounter a different perspective; or to essentially 'remove the layers of his mental conditioning' at a rapid rate, to delve into aspects of his consciousness, so as to encounter what one could assume to be his, 'divine essence'.(He may not have made a 'divine encounter' his intention, but this can often be the end result with Entheogens, as they are believed to 'dissolve the ego')

So, for example; using passive methods like 'drinking Ayahausca' and seeing where it takes him, he may encounter an altered perspective/ or glimpse of his 'true essence'.

Because of this he might become fascinated in learning more about spirituality; develop an interest in Entheogens; and often question his duty and place, in the universe.
Now he may decide at some point that he has seen enough to satisfy his curiosity and that he never really wanted a deep experience anyway (now that he knows what it's like), or may venture deeper along the path of self discovery, developing patience and serious intentions, very similar to a Monk or Shaman (see part 2): leading him to possibly incorporate new tools/skills.


2. Curandero/ Shaman , is not such an easy category to define. It 'could' be considered to be more like an 'advanced/ upgraded version' of a psychonaut, combining 'serious intention'; deeper understanding; and skilled abilities, with a goal to be able to work within the *'spiritual, energetic, or unconscious realms'.
*(If you consider them as such; supposedly to go to work in '^such realms', using skills that they have learnt, and in doing so make changes in what we call the 'real world' )

They exist in many different forms all over the world with different 'titles'; often, (but not always) using a variety of 'tools'/ Entheogens, and often perform different duties. Endlessness says, that some may be even be like Psychonauts (see part 1), on their own introspective paths of self discovery. ( Perhaps this is them in 'training mode'? )

A few examples:

Some may learn skills to supposedly enable them to find lost objects; make predictions of the future; or help with hunting, etc. The list goes on!

Amazonian Curandero's can supposedly diagnose illness and cure it with the help of 'plant spirits' that they communicate with, thanks to the help of strict 'dietas'; Ayahuasca drinking; icaros; and mapaccho tobacco.

>This is a simple template for what is a very complex topic that involves many different cultures, so please feel free to correct me where you can.

 

[endlessness]

If it helps you make sense of reality to define it in that way, that's a positive thing

I'm not sure though if you are clearing misunderstandings or maybe creating more ...

For example, specially in the case of shamans/curanderos/vegetalistas/etc , as you see, there are already so many names that may mean different things. They are in different geographic areas, have different cultures, often opposing beliefs, etc. Some of those may never take the substances we take. Some may take some brew themselves but not to the patient. Others might give to the patient but not to themselves. Others might never have patients and just be in their own exploration isolated from the tribe. Some may work more with giving predictions for hunting or trying to find lost objects, others may be more in the medicinal realm, others may do it all.

Also your definition of a shaman supposes there are actual 'energies or spirits' being manipulated (may or may not be true), and supposes that they are by default 'right' in their knowledge of illnesses.

 

[ganesh]

Thanks Endlessness.

Original post edited, for clarity.

 

[Hiyo Quicksilver]

I can't speak to the Shamanism angle, being neither Shaman nor self-ascribed Neoshaman. However, I do find that the OP's definition of Psychonaut to be shallow and ill-informed, if not entirely misapprehended.
While the aforementioned outlook and behavior may be reasonably associated with some people who call themselves psychonauts, it is not an accurate definition of the term as it originated or has been used among those responsible for bringing it into the vernacular.

Psychonautics (from the Greek ψυχή psychē ["soul", "spirit" or "mind"] and ναύτης naútēs ["sailor" or "navigator"] – "a sailor of the soul") refers both to a methodology for describing and explaining the subjective effects of altered states of consciousness, including those induced by meditation or mind-altering substances, and to a research paradigm in which the researcher voluntarily immerses himself or herself into an altered mental state in order to explore the accompanying experiences.

The term "Psychonaut", as coined by fabulist Ernst Junger, was made in reference to pharmacologist Arthur Heffter, who was a pioneer of experimental pharmacology and is perhaps most known as the first person to isolate mescaline from peyote cactus, and thus the first to successfully extract a pure psychedelic substance from its original plant matter. He was also known for having performed the early bioassays and experiments on himself, as did many of his later contemporaries by his example.
The term was later brought further into popularity by author Peter J. Carroll in his book "Liber Null & Psychonaut". Carroll was the co-founder of the Illuminates of Thanateros, whose many notable members (including Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary) were greatly influenced by his work and helped introduce a great many elements of Western Occultism and Chaos Magick into the ideals of the psychedelic revolution and its progress into the 21st century, along with the word "Psychonaut"

The term has since been used in scholarly articles and other published works, and a solid grasp of its intended definition should be blatantly clear to anyone willing to investigate their use of language beyond merely associating labels used by their idiot peers.

Of course, with popularity comes opportunity for those who are misinformed, heedlessly narcissistic and/or grasping to overcome their own inadequacy to take up the mantle of the self-ascribed "Psychonaut" in order to manipulate others or reinforce their own inflated self-image. The same can absolutely be said of Shamanism, and those who abuse the title of "Shaman" are arguably the perpetrators of much greater atrocity when taken to the extreme.
----------------------
I see no reason why the labels "shaman" and "psychonaut" should be mutually exclusive by defalut, and one could even reasonably say that a shaman is, by prerequisite, a psychonaut.

In fact.. I see no reason for this thread, except to inadvertantly correct your own lack of research before gracing us with your expert analysis. Or perhaps it is just to underhandedly convey your own opinion in a biased manner.

 

[ganesh]

do find that the OP's definition of Psychonaut to be shallow and ill-informed, if not entirely misapprehended.
While the aforementioned outlook and behavior may be reasonably associated with some people who call themselves psychonauts, it is not an accurate definition of the term as it originated or has been used among those responsible for bringing it into the vernacular

Thanks for mentioning that, Hiyo.

You are correct in what you said in some aspects, however i did explain in the unedited version you read, that psychonauts can be like Shaman in part 1 and part 2. Also i did say i was 'trying' to explain as 'simply as possible' the complex subject in question.

Thus, for the sake of clarity, i have ammended my o/p to allow a broader and more flexible viewpoint of the term Psychonaut, (with Wikipedia links to the subject titles, to try and cater for every possible explanation, withing ease of public access)

Please note that i made it clear from the start that i was trying to simplify the meaning as much as possible, and to try to differentiate between the 'regular forum psychonaut', and Curandero/ Shaman.

The point i was trying to get at was that a Psychonaut can be many things, but it seems to be a more 'passive' type of activity, rather than what an Amazonian Curandero, Tobaquero, Palero, etc, 'actively works at doing', by working with plant spirits, as they say they do.

I see no reason why the labels "shaman" and "psychonaut" should be mutually exclusive by defalut, and one could even reasonably say that a shaman is, by prerequisite, a psychonaut.

In fact.. I see no reason for this thread, except to inadvertantly correct your own lack of research before gracing us with your expert analysis. Or perhaps it is just to underhandedly convey your own opinion in a biased manner.

Hiyo,

that is YOUR point of view, and you are welcome to it. However, you may be incorrect by saying that, and Wikepedia does differentiate between them, although you may indeed say that Psychonaut is a broad term that includes Shamanism.

I do however feel that such a thread was necessary/ is of value and use, especially if it helps to offer clarification about the subject. For example there are too many 'vague' posts involving the subject, and it was obvious that people making the posts had little understanding of some of the most simplest of differences, (meaning that some sort of help was required in order to educate a better understanding, and hopefully promote more FACTS, and less FLUFF.)

Nope, i'm not attempting to be biased whatsoever, just providing links for people to access should they choose to. I offer an 'open perspective', and 'service', if you like, for ease of explanation trying to make some sorts of specific distinction.

You yourself said you 'cannot talk about Curandero/ Shaman, in your opening comments', yet here you are trying to talk about it, when you yourself said you know little about it! :lol:

 

[dreamer042]

Sorry haven't read the thread, probably will at some point and I promise to troll it mercilessly, but in the meantime I had to fix the misspelling in the title. :lol:

 

[ganesh]

Sorry haven't read the thread,

probably will at some point and I promise to troll it mercilessly :lol:

Mwa ha ha ha....

Thank's for your honesty, dreamer.

However, i have now applied Wikepedia links, and have incorporated words to explain the broadness of the said subjects, so that if anyone now wants to troll the post i will accuse them of failing to read it's broad meaning or access'ing the links... :twisted:

Now kindly excuse me as i return to my Golden throne, and sit on my gold laced red velvet cushion....

 

[Chan]

Before you go any further:

It's psychonaut NOT psychonaught

The plural of shaman is shamans not shaman's

Same for curanderos.

Normally, I'd refrain from being so pedantic, but that extra 'G' really sticks in my eye, and is quite egregious, particularly coming from someone so concerned about using the "correct terminology"

 

[ganesh]

Before you go any further:It's psychonaut NOT psychonaught

Normally, I'd refrain from being so pedantic, but that extra 'G' really sticks in my eye, and is quite egregious, particularly coming from someone so concerned about using the "correct terminology"

Thank you, Chan.

Feelings understood, and post ammended.

 

[Hiyo Quicksilver]

You are correct in what you said in some aspects, however i did explain in the unedited version you read, that psychonauts can be like Shaman in part 1 and part 2. Also i did say i was 'trying' to explain as 'simply as possible' the complex subject in question...
{{paragraphs 2 & 3 juxtaposed for context}}
Please note that i made it clear from the start that i was trying to simplify the meaning as much as possible, and to try to differentiate between the 'regular forum psychonaut', and Curandero/ Shaman.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between "simplification" and "generalization". If you're going to generalize the term "psychonaut" to describe everyone from the like of Arthur Heffter, Shulgin, Hoffman or the McKennas to any Johnathan Talat Philips or "regular forum psychonaut" as you put it, without also generalizing "shamanism" to a similar extent to include every neoshaman, plastic practitioner, confused honeymooner or Amazonian con artist with a bucket of "ayahuasca"... Then I don't see how this post can be anything but biased.

Thus, for the sake of clarity, i have ammended my o/p to allow a broader and more flexible viewpoint of the term Psychonaut, (with Wikipedia links to the subject titles, to try and cater for every possible explanation, withing ease of public access.

The interest of clarity sure seems like a convenient excuse for editing your previous material in order to avoid accountability for your original opening statement; Sure, it's great to leave behind quality sources of information for those who may seek it and find this thread... But misrepresenting what no longer exists due to those edits, in order to gain some sort of argumentative advantage, leads to tragically low-quality throughout the thread as a whole.

The point i was trying to get at was that a Psychonaut can be many things, but it seems to be a more 'passive' type of activity, rather than what an Amazonian Curandero, Tobaquero, Palero, etc, 'actively works at doing', by working with plant spirits, as they say they do.

You can stretch definitions however you like when using broad labels, but if you are indeed attempting to avoid bias, then you should expand both labels to an equivalent degree when making comparisons. Both Psychonautics and Shamanism are practiced in varying degrees of "active" involvement by nearly every human on Earth. We are practicing Shamanism (whether we are aware of it or not) during our traditional Christmas celebrations (both of the Christian and Pagan sort) and we are practicing Psychonautics when we reminisce on a dream just after waking, or smoke a joint and rap on the Nexus Chat about Deja Vu or how it feels to be alone in the woods.

Of all the examples available, it seems to me that you are chiefly focusing on just a spare few, with an attitude which suggests that the curandero is equivalent to the average keyboard jockey, when it comes to the level of active involvement to which shamen and psychonauts engage in their respected pursuits.

You might fairly liken the average arrogant keyboard jockey on Shroomery to the average egomaniacal hippy with a copy of "The Way of the Shaman" who wants to read your aura, or you might compare a Curandero to a German chemist, synthesizing novel ergolines and carrying out experiments on his own mind and body... But to liken the keyboard jockey to the Curandero in a way that portends to give an accurate reference for those seeking clarification is, at best, unintentional misinformation and, at worst, intentional obfuscation and disinformation.

I see no reason why the labels "shaman" and "psychonaut" should be mutually exclusive by defalut, and one could even reasonably say that a shaman is, by prerequisite, a psychonaut.

In fact.. I see no reason for this thread, except to inadvertantly correct your own lack of research before gracing us with your expert analysis. Or perhaps it is just to underhandedly convey your own opinion in a biased manner.

that is YOUR point of view, and you are welcome to it. However, you may be incorrect by saying that, and Wikepedia does differentiate between them, although you may indeed say that Psychonaut is a broad term that includes Shamanism.

That is actually not my point of view. If that is sincerely what you gleaned from my previous post, then we are yet again facing a case of tragic misapprehension which is creating division.

Perhaps you'd care to read more carefully what was written:

I see no reason why the labels "shaman" and "psychonaut" should be mutually exclusive by defalut, and one could even reasonably say that a shaman is, by prerequisite, a psychonaut.

If I need to explain why this is the case, then I think it's safe to say that you needn't be posting on either topic, but instead asking questions. Regardless, I'll reiterate that "psychonaut" and "shaman" are not mutually exclusive descriptors, and yet they are not mutually inclusive, either.

Psychonautics is not a religious or spiritual pursuit, even though it may be an integral part of a great many spiritual paths. Conversely, Shamanism specifically refers to a wide variety spiritual practices, to whatever degree one's definition permits. Shamanic, or especially neoshamanic practice may often include or parallel psychonautic practice, or may not at all in a denotative sense.

However relevant the topics may be to each other, they remain differentiated on the basic premise that Psychonautics is a field of study, and Shamanism is a spiritual practice.

I do however feel that such a thread was necessary/ is of value and use, especially if it helps to offer clarification about the subject. For example there are too many 'vague' posts involving the subject, and it was obvious that people making the posts had little understanding of some of the most simplest of differences, (meaning that some sort of help was required in order to educate a better understanding, and hopefully promote more FACTS, and less FLUFF.)

Nope, i'm not attempting to be biased whatsoever, just providing links for people to access should they choose to. I offer an 'open perspective', and 'service', if you like, for ease of explanation trying to make some sorts of specific distinction.

If you wish to provide an open perspective, or facts rather than "fluff", you would do well to fully apprehend that of which you speak before opening your "mouth".. All you have presented is pure, baseless opinion, except where you have edited others' references into your own entirely fluff-ridden OP.

You've contradicted yourself numerous times over. Either you are stating your opinion (read: fluff), or your are stating fact (in which case, your inaccuracy and bias has been pointed out many times by multiple participants)... You cannot have it both ways, and on a forum restricted to use by adults, it is reasonably expected that accountability for your words and actions is within within your capacity.

You yourself said you 'cannot talk about Curandero/ Shaman, in your opening comments', yet here you are trying to talk about it, when you yourself said you know little about it! :lol:

I said that I cannot comment on it, as I am neither initiated shaman nor anthropologist. And while I may fit the denotative bill of neoshaman, I simply don't care to speak in that capacity as a matter of taste and relevance to the discussion... As you are neither initiated shaman nor anthropologist, I fail to see the ground upon which you stand when speaking, yourself.

Furthermore, since you have only yet to provide us with a very narrow frame of reference in regard to shamanism, I'm only to assume that you've no knowledge of shamanic practice beyond small parts of the southern or central americas, when in fact shamanic practice takes place worldwide, throughout the historical record. Please, if you've a leg to stand on at all, do feel free to invite us to a more detailed an comprehensive discussion on the full spectrum of shamanism and neoshamanism as practiced worldwide, in relation to the study of psychonautics, rather than simply making baseless generalizations and stating your uneducated opinion as concrete fact.

What I am speaking about here, however, is not shamanism in particular. While I am actually speaking more of psychonautics in my post (a pursuit held common among basically every active member of this board), I am speaking mostly to the logical fallacy of the OP, in order to question your motives because I believe this thread to either be manipulative disinformation, or the product of a sadly confused person with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove, in an underhanded fashion.

So far, I've seen absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[ganesh]

Thanks for the reply, Hiyo.

I apologise if it upset the quality of the thread when i ammended the opening post. I was doing so because i wanted to make a quick easy to reference o/p that would be easier to access than reading through pages of discussions, since i believed that such a post was necessary.

Regarding your other points, i seriously urge you to read again my o/p, and you will see it was meant to be nothing more than simple, with added links for further investigations via reasonably respected sources.

You admit you know little of Shamanism, yet you are saying that there is no difference between that and Psychonautics. Funny, but Wikepedia seems to think otherwise. Interesting dat! I'm all for reasonable feedback. I just hope that if you 'think' my post is so poor that you could instead make a better contribution, for the benefit of the Nexus.

Regards. 8)

 

[null24]

In my view a fairly simple breakdown can be made, psychonauts get high, shamans heal, first themselves, then others. Again, that's the simple form answer.

Actually one of the great benefits i can see this thread providing for posterity is chan's spelling lesson. If I see one more new ager with anti this and anti that bumper stickers all over the Subaru using the word shaMEN, like mailmen or mermen, I'm going to vomit for the rest of eternity.

Sorry this thread is trolltastic, can't help myself.

 

[Chan]

Cheers, Null! Obviously The Shamen, are something else entirely...

[YOUTUBE]

 

[Hiyo Quicksilver]

I'll write this in a smaller post, as perhaps the previous was a bit overwhelming to your limited comprehension ability or attention span... You are, yet again, entirely incorrect. If you're going to reply to my post, please do it the courtesy of actually reading the post, as I have done for your own before replying.

Thanks for the reply, Hiyo.

I apologise if it upset the quality of the thread when i ammended the opening post. I was doing so because i wanted to make a quick easy to reference o/p that would be easier to access than reading through pages of discussions, since i believed that such a post was necessary.

Which is all well and good, of course... However, claiming to have written something which wasn't there, after editing away the content in question, is just plain dishonest. Since I didn't bother quoting your original text, I'll leave it at that.. But as I'm sure you're well aware of your own intentions, no more need be said on the topic.

Regarding your other points, i seriously urge you to read again my o/p, and you will see it was meant to be nothing more than simple, with added links for further investigations via reasonably respected sources.

I have read your posts, both the opening and subsequent ones, and every other in this thread. I've seen your sources (most of which I provided myself, before you edited them into your own post), and will suggest in return that you take your own advice and fully read those posts to which you are replying to. You will likely find that you have, yet again, misapprehended my meaning entirely in your haste to make an argumentative response.

You admit you know little of Shamanism, yet you are saying that there is no difference between that and Psychonautics. Funny, but Wikepedia seems to think otherwise. Interesting dat! I'm all for reasonable feedback. I just hope that if you 'think' my post is so poor that you could instead make a better contribution, for the benefit of the Nexus

I am not saying that, and this is the second time that you have incorrectly put words into my mouth. The first time is excusable due to haste and ignorance, but now you're just showing yourself to be more concerned with arguing than communicating... And that's an idiotic attitude which is not only one I don't care to engage on a similar level, but one that is discouraged by forum rules as well.

Fully read my words, or simply don't reply to them... Skimming a post and coming off half-cocked at a misapprehended point is simply a waste of everyone's time. :!:

Since your ability to comprehend what is written seems to be impaired (lets hope you're just high on something), allow me to reiterate the relevant points from previous posts, so that you can see how what I said is not what you came to understand:

I see no reason why the labels "shaman" and "psychonaut" should be mutually exclusive by default, and one could even reasonably say that a shaman is, by prerequisite, a psychonaut.

that is YOUR point of view, and you are welcome to it. However, you may be incorrect by saying that, and Wikepedia does differentiate between them, although you may indeed say that Psychonaut is a broad term that includes Shamanism.

That is actually not my point of view. If that is sincerely what you gleaned from my previous post, then we are yet again facing a case of tragic misapprehension which is creating division.

Perhaps you'd care to read more carefully what was written.

You admit you know little of Shamanism, yet you are saying that there is no difference between that and Psychonautics.

And then I even make myself even more clear, later in that post:

Psychonautics is not a religious or spiritual pursuit, even though it may be an integral part of a great many spiritual paths. Conversely, Shamanism specifically refers to a wide variety spiritual practices, to whatever degree one's definition permits. Shamanic, or especially neoshamanic practice may often include or parallel psychonautic practice, or may not at all in a denotative sense.

However relevant the topics may be to each other, they remain differentiated on the basic premise that Psychonautics is a field of study, and Shamanism is a spiritual practice.

Again, if you are incapable of interpreting what I mean in this case, you are in some serious need of reading comprehension tutoring... Though what seems more likely is that you're in too much of a hurry to put others down and make a point, to actually read their words. We're here to learn and share, not to feed your narcissistic hostility.

I said that I don't care to speak on the topic of shamanism, being neither Shaman nor anthropologist (in the interest of not speaking out of my ass, I'll leave it to those who are).

I'm interested to know upon what authority you speak, since you seem to think yourself so much more qualified to edify our readership. Under what indigenous practitioner or institution of anthropological study did you learn?... Or are you just, in fact, talking out of your ass after all? Last I heard, Wikipedia is neither a valid and inherently verifiable source, nor institution of higher learning.

I'm all for reasonable feedback. I just hope that if you 'think' my post is so poor that you could instead make a better contribution, for the benefit of the Nexus.

You are evidently not all for reasonable feedback, as evidenced that you've dramatically shown us that you're incapable of reading and comprehending it.

And obviously you did find at least something I've posted to be of positive contribution to the thread, considering the fact that you edited the content of my reply into your opening post in the interest of "clarity" and edification.

I've come to two possible conclusions here... Either you are an ignoramus who simply cannot be bothered to think critically, or you're here just to troll and spark arguments.

Regardless, I've yet to see any reason to dignify what else you may say with a response. :!:
---------------------------------------------

In my view a fairly simple breakdown can be made, psychonauts get high, shamans heal, first themselves, then others. Again, that's the simple form answer.

As I know that you're not simply trying to spark an argument, null, I might ask... Would it not be more accurate to say that "psychonauts study, and shamans heal"?

Both "get high", that is to say they utilize and explore altered states of consciousness and in many cases induce those states in themselves... Does it not paint a biased picture when we say that psychonauts merely "get high"?

When does "simplification" become "overgeneralization"?

...And have you already crossed that line into bias and disinformation?

Sure, there are many self-ascribed psychonauts who simply sit around getting high, using the label to rationalize inaction and drug use/abuse... But the same, and much worse, can be said of those who abuse the label of "Shaman".

By your logic, I could just as easily say that "Psychonauts study, and Shamans rape & murder... But would that not also be an egregious over-generalization, as well?

If you manipulate the facts of one side of a comparison, you must equally distort the other side or your statement is inherently biased, without exception.

 

[ganesh]

Hiyo,

actually i DID respond to your post 'properly' but i deleted it because i didn't want to get involved in an argument based upon 'you misunderstanding the idea of the simple post i made with links'. As Homer would say, DOH!. plus: i couldn't be bothered with debating the discussion with you because it appears you:

1. Completely ignored reading my o/p properly,

2. Insulted me in both recent replies, and accused me of having some kind of sad motive for making the post.

3. Suggested that i knew nothing about what i was saying, or was out to troll, etc

4. you suggested that i based my knowledge upon yours. Bullpoo!

5. There's more but i'm already bored!

-I'll see if i can find the 'proper reply', since its common courtesy, as you yourself said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is!

Thanks for the reply, Hiyo. I would like to address a few things:

Perhaps a distinction should be made between "simplification" and "generalization".

Really? for such a SIMPLE post, WITH ADDED LINKS?

The interest of clarity sure seems like a convenient excuse for editing your previous material in order to avoid accountability for your original opening statement; Sure, it's great to leave behind quality sources of information for those who may seek it and find this thread... But misrepresenting what no longer exists due to those edits, in order to gain some sort of argumentative advantage, leads to tragically low-quality throughout the thread as a whole.

Ahh. Nice to see your duty of care extends towards, the 'quality of the thread'. Jokes aside, if what you just wrote doesn't illustrate 'sophisticated trolling masturbation', then i don't know what does! Laughing

You can stretch definitions however you like .....Both Psychonautics and Shamanism are practiced in varying degrees of "active" involvement by nearly every human on Earth.
Of all the examples available, it seems to me that you are chiefly focusing on just a spare few, with an attitude which suggests that the curandero is equivalent to the average keyboard jockey, when it comes to the level of active involvement to which shamen and psychonauts engage in their respected pursuits.

Umm...it was a SIMPLE post, Hiyo. Yes, i gave SOME examples, but you couldn't help but try and project it as if what i offered was 'all there was to it', and that was final? I never claimed or even attempted to do such a thing! Razz

In fact.. I see no reason for this thread, except to inadvertantly correct your own lack of research before gracing us with your expert analysis.
Regardless, I'll reiterate that "psychonaut" and "shaman" are not mutually exclusive descriptors, and yet they are not mutually inclusive, either.

Diddums! who say's i see any point or value in what YOU post? Whatever, i made it CLEAR that there was flexibility within the complex issue of Psychonats vs Shaman.

Psychonautics is not a religious or spiritual pursuit, even though it may be an integral part of a great many spiritual paths.

Oh, splitting hairs? Of course it can be a religious or spiritual pursuit, or part of it.

All you have presented is pure, baseless opinion, except where you have edited others' references into your own entirely fluff-ridden OP.
You've contradicted yourself numerous times over. Either you are stating your opinion (read: fluff), or your are stating fact.

You need to RE-READ my post PROPERLY this time. Wink

Furthermore, since you have only yet to provide us with a very narrow frame of reference in regard to shamanism, I'm only to assume that you've no knowledge of shamanic practice beyond small parts of the southern or central americas, when in fact shamanic practice takes place worldwide
What I am speaking about here, however, is not shamanism in particular. While I am actually speaking more of psychonautics in my post
I believe this thread to either be manipulative disinformation, or the product of a sadly confused person with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove, in an underhanded fashion. So far, I've seen absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

Ha! Sounds to me like YOU'RE the one with a 'chip on his shoulder', out to 'prove himself'. What i am reading sound more like 'TROLLING', than anything else. Sincerely, it does!
The post i made was a QUICK one, with links. Actually by it's clever design, those interested in furthering their understanding of Shamanism, can use Wikepedia to do so. You don't expect me to print pages of stuff on that when i aim for a simple post, now do you, huh??

You speak little of Shamanism, because by your own admission you know very little about it. You make assumptions about the person who i am, which i find downright offensive, if not provoking. However, since you're main focus has been more of a personal attack, it is plain to see for everyone out there that you made this post purely for the purposes of BAITING and TROLLING. Twisted Evil

Plus:

I must admit that i do find your reply to be full to the brim of 'FLUFF'. That is probably because you talk as if the post i made was written as if it was 'concrete fact'. If you actually READ IT PROPERLY, you would find the opposite to be true: I frequently used the words; 'maybe; assume; possibly; may; might', etc, to ensure that what was read would be interpreted in an open minded- not concrete, manner. Wink

I made it clear right from the start that i was 'TRYING' to attempt, to make this an 'as simple as possible', comparison!

Actually i also made this clear at the end of my post. Sure i edited it, to make it clearer and to incorporate positive feedback. I even provided links to Wikipedia, so those like yourself can maybe consult Wikipedia, for further research.

Seriously, i think you're a bit into 'attack mode' here especially since i made my the above points obvious, plus your projecting your own ideas that you think i don't know certain stuff (which is untrue), or you talk stuff about aspects of Psychonautics that isn't even relevant in such a simple post, (where the links would provide such info)

Seriously, i urge you to RE-READ my o/p, and you will probably see that you can try and 'divide and conquer it', at every conceivable angle (for what it is/ was intended for), but it is a fortress of information within it's very simple meek'ness, yet that is tighter than the tightest ducks arse! Laughing

I'm all for reasonable feedback. I just hope that if you think my post is so poor that you could instead make a better one for the benefit of the Nexus.

Cool

 

[Psybin]

Hiyo,

actually i DID respond to your post 'properly' but i deleted it because i didn't want to get involved in an argument based upon 'you misunderstanding the simple post i made with links'. As Homer would say, DOH!. plus: i couldn't be bothered with debating the discussion with you because it appears you:

1. Completely ignored reading my o/p properly,

2. Insulted me and accused me of having some kind of sad motive for making the post.

3. Suggested that i knew nothing about what i was saying.

4. you lied about providing links.

5. There's more but i'm already bored!

-I'll see if i can find the 'proper reply', since its common courtesy, as you yourself said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is!

Thanks for the reply, Hiyo. I would like to address a few things:

Perhaps a distinction should be made between "simplification" and "generalization".

Really? for such a SIMPLE post, WITH ADDED LINKS?

The interest of clarity sure seems like a convenient excuse for editing your previous material in order to avoid accountability for your original opening statement; Sure, it's great to leave behind quality sources of information for those who may seek it and find this thread... But misrepresenting what no longer exists due to those edits, in order to gain some sort of argumentative advantage, leads to tragically low-quality throughout the thread as a whole.

Ahh. Nice to see your duty of care extends towards, the 'quality of the thread'. Jokes aside, if what you just wrote doesn't illustrate 'sophisticated trolling masturbation', then i don't know what does! Laughing

You can stretch definitions however you like .....Both Psychonautics and Shamanism are practiced in varying degrees of "active" involvement by nearly every human on Earth.
Of all the examples available, it seems to me that you are chiefly focusing on just a spare few, with an attitude which suggests that the curandero is equivalent to the average keyboard jockey, when it comes to the level of active involvement to which shamen and psychonauts engage in their respected pursuits.

Umm...it was a SIMPLE post, Hiyo. Yes, i gave SOME examples, but you couldn't help but try and project it as if what i offered was 'all there was to it', and that was final? I never claimed or even attempted to do such a thing! Razz

In fact.. I see no reason for this thread, except to inadvertantly correct your own lack of research before gracing us with your expert analysis.
Regardless, I'll reiterate that "psychonaut" and "shaman" are not mutually exclusive descriptors, and yet they are not mutually inclusive, either.

Diddums! who say's i see any point or value in what YOU post? Whatever, i made it CLEAR that there was flexibility within the complex issue of Psychonats vs Shaman.

Psychonautics is not a religious or spiritual pursuit, even though it may be an integral part of a great many spiritual paths.

Oh, splitting hairs? Of course it can be a religious or spiritual pursuit, or part of it.

All you have presented is pure, baseless opinion, except where you have edited others' references into your own entirely fluff-ridden OP.
You've contradicted yourself numerous times over. Either you are stating your opinion (read: fluff), or your are stating fact.

You need to RE-READ my post PROPERLY this time. Wink

Furthermore, since you have only yet to provide us with a very narrow frame of reference in regard to shamanism, I'm only to assume that you've no knowledge of shamanic practice beyond small parts of the southern or central americas, when in fact shamanic practice takes place worldwide
What I am speaking about here, however, is not shamanism in particular. While I am actually speaking more of psychonautics in my post
I believe this thread to either be manipulative disinformation, or the product of a sadly confused person with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove, in an underhanded fashion. So far, I've seen absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

Ha! Sounds to me like YOU'RE the one with a 'chip on his shoulder', out to 'prove himself'. What i am reading sound more like 'TROLLING', than anything else. Sincerely, it does!
The post i made was a QUICK one, with links. Actually by it's clever design, those interested in furthering their understanding of Shamanism, can use Wikepedia to do so. You don't expect me to print pages of stuff on that when i aim for a simple post, now do you, huh??

You speak little of Shamanism, because by your own admission you know very little about it. You make assumptions about the person who i am, which i find downright offensive, if not provoking. However, since you're main focus has been more of a personal attack, it is plain to see for everyone out there that you made this post purely for the purposes of BAITING and TROLLING. Twisted Evil

Plus:

I must admit that i do find your reply to be full to the brim of 'FLUFF'. That is probably because you talk as if the post i made was written as if it was 'concrete fact'. If you actually READ IT PROPERLY, you would find the opposite to be true: I frequently used the words; 'maybe; assume; possibly; may; might', etc, to ensure that what was read would be interpreted in an open minded- not concrete, manner. Wink

I made it clear right from the start that i was 'TRYING' to attempt, to make this an 'as simple as possible', comparison!

Actually i also made this clear at the end of my post. Sure i edited it, to make it clearer and to incorporate positive feedback. I even provided links to Wikipedia, so those like yourself can maybe consult Wikipedia, for further research.

Seriously, i think you're a bit into 'attack mode' here especially since i made my the above points obvious, plus your projecting your own ideas that you think i don't know certain stuff (which is untrue), or you talk stuff about aspects of Psychonautics that isn't even relevant in such a simple post, (where the links would provide such info)

Seriously, i urge you to RE-READ my o/p, and you will probably see that you can try and 'divide and conquer it', at every conceivable angle (for what it is/ was intended for), but it is a fortress of information within it's very simple meek'ness, yet that is tighter than the tightest ducks arse! Laughing

I'm all for reasonable feedback. I just hope that if you think my post is so poor that you could instead make a better one for the benefit of the Nexus.

Cool

Just stop it, you're wasting everyone's time and being inherently dishonest. That is not the kind of ATTITUDE we adhere to on this forum. We've all read the idiotic drivel you call posts, so stop telling us to go and re-read them when you won't even do us the same courtesy. This thread was inherently pointless other than as a display of your ignorance and enormous desire to argue for no useful reason.

EDIT: Btw, I read your ORIGINAL OP before you edited it to include Hiyo's sources, which is extremely dishonest. So don't try and bullsh*t me about being misunderstood, because I've been following this thread from the very first post.

 

[ganesh]

EDIT: Btw, I read your ORIGINAL OP before you edited it to include Hiyo's sources, which is extremely dishonest. So don't try and bullsh*t me about being misunderstood, because I've been following this thread from the very first post.

Seriously dude, are you for real?


I HAVE MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR that i've edited the o/p, so wtf are you arguing about that? It was never an issue. I wanted to provide as a service a post that newbie's could access because there was so much confusion about the subject.

Of course, i didn't want anyone having to trawl through pages upon pages of text when looking for a QUICK REFERENCE, did i?

Arguing with you guys was the last thing on my mind, but you guys can't help yourself for seeing red and arguing off tangent's, completely missing the whole POINT of my thread, WHICH WAS TO 'KEEP IT SIMPLE'. So kindly don't insult me when you are WRONG.

This is an example of both YOU and HIYO completely not 'getting it'. :x

 

[dreamer042]

... and we're done. :!:

Move along, nothing to see here.

Go outside and ask a tree about the medicine path. You'll learn a lot moar out there than in here.

 

[a1pha]

... and we're done. :!:

How DARE you close this thread before ME! I thought shutting down pointless "shaman" definition threads was MY job! :x

/me pounds his hands on the desk and waits for Pointless Shaman Definition & Argument Thread #133.