User talk:Prometheuspan/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Prometheuspan/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Psychonaut

The issue isn't whether or not Shamans are actually psychonauts, because those who use entheogenic sacraments view them as a tool to go beyond their own psyche, and communicate with spirits, or God. So while technically (or scientifically) they may be psychonauts, those having a spiritual experience believe themselves to be far beyond their own psyche... making psychonaut an inadequate term (at least for them).

As for recreational use, the powers that be consider any use beyond strictly medical applications to be recreational, regardless of intention, aside for some minor concessions for aboriginal religious practices. --Thoric 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) I don't think I am claiming anything spiritual or magickal about that definition. I think i may see the core failure here tho; Psychonauts come of 10001 denominations and stripes. There are Shamanic ones, Christian ones, Modern Psychology ones, ... A person who explore the psyche is a psyche o naut. One Tool amongst many that SOME psychonauts do use is Entheogens.

In terms of fair use and educational ethics, I think we should exhaust the list of alternatives before we use drugs to enter an altered state of consciousness. Its not that Entheogens are not a part of Psychonautics, its just that they are not the defining characteristic of a psychonaut. Prometheuspan 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of alternatives, some of which could take a lifetime to perfect. --Thoric 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Whoa, slow down... you're going too fast ;) I know that a psychonaut is one who travels (or sails) the mind, but there is nothing inheritantly spiritual or magical about that definition. A person is free to be both a psychonaut, and a shaman, but the terms are not interchangeable. A psychonaut may have a spiritual experience, but that does not make him or her a shaman. A shaman also would not generally refer to him/herself as a psychonaut. --Thoric 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I still feel like we are talking past each other. Everything you just said sounds essentially true to me except this;

"The term psychonaut exists to distinguish the more intellectual
and/or recreational use of psychedelics from the more spiritual /
ritualistic use of entheogens by Shamans,"

Let me explain my inherant Bias first, because that is the Starting point. I'm an aspergers Syndrome Dyslexic who learned to speed read about 100 pages per hour and whose choice material for several years was textbooks.

I AM the original "Nagual"... In that My Cognicenter is askew from the standard in the "Aspergers" direction.

I grew up in Provo Utah, had two devout Mormon Parents, couldn't even find as much as a list of Christian Denominations in the Local Library, and still managed to get my Hands on a Direct Translation Tanakh by the time I was 11.

I am as an adult an Eclectic Integrator; What fascinates me most are the places most people aren't even thinking to look.

One final thought before i hand you a propper Table of contents; Somebody over in "Magic" Harry Potterville just offered me a "professorship" over at Wiki Books. What is most amusing about this Situation is that he is a Great Example of a Magickal Thinker, and I am a better Example of a Rational One.

He doesn't have the first clue himself what Magic is, He's just blindly following one strand of information and intercepting it. I'm thinking of giving him an expanded Table of contents, but the big question is; Is this all just a pearls before swine exercise?

lol.

  • 1. The Tao of Self
  • 2. The Tao of Malkut/Tiferet
  • 3. Inwer Cosm
  • 4. Grounding and Centering
  • 5. Cleansing and Purifying
  • 6. Representational Schema
  • 7. Ritual
  • 8. Full Stop
  • 9. Beta States
  • 10. Alpha States
  • 11. Delta States
  • 12. Somnambulistic Trance (Hypnogogia)
  • 13 Lucid Visualization
  • 14. Dreams
  • 15. Tarota Labrys
  • 16. Theta States
  • 17. Shamanic Music
  • 18. The Aspects of Self
  • 19. The Psychonauts Key
  • 20. The Tree of Life
  • 21 Behavior and State
  • 22. Creating State Specific Social Contracts
  • 23. Contact Improv
  • 24. Totemism
  • 25. Satyrian Psychonautica
  • 26. Dragon Psychonautica
  • 27. Faery Psychonautica
  • 28. Imp Psychonautica
  • 29. The ALLY and the FORCE
  • 30. Entheogenic Protocols
  • 31. Meditative Breathe
  • 32. Meditative Movement
  • 33. Meditative Thought
  • 34. The Force of Atttention
  • 35. Tribalism
  • 36. Brain region, Function, and State
  • 37. Psychonautic Atlas
  • A. Psychonaut Reports
  • B. Shaman Reports
  • C. Mage Reports
  • D. Schematization of Experiences
  • Index
  • Glossary

Thats one.

I have part two waiting behind it... I'll type it next. Prometheuspan 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • ps;
  • psyche; SHE of the Mammalian interface mind
  • Naut; To Boldly go where no one has gone before....

Is your objection to the inclusion of recreational use? -- Thoric 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, my objection is taxonomic and related to the way in which we use language and define things. Honestly, I can't tell you any more that i am against occasional recreational use without making myself a hypocrit. But no, it isn't the same thing as Shamanic use; not as a point of contention, but a point of ontology.

This is actually irrelevant for your understanding of what my issue is; psycho naut is just one who explores the psyche; Entheogens, which i will even freely admit that i use, i am not against them, thats not the point. Its just that there is recreational use of a shamanic substance, psuedoshamanic use of a substance, and Shamanic use of A substance; I am educated enough to know the difference; the difference is; No Sane person makes drugs the center of their Shamanic Practice. The Center of The thing is defined by its circumferance; only by including the entire rest of what Shamanism entails, (from the culturonuetral perspective) do we begin to talk about psycho naut. A final way of putting it. The Defining Characteristic of a genuine Psychonaut is that they use some form of TRANCE TECHNOLOGY. Prometheuspan 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While I would not encourage recreational use of entheogenic substances, we need to recognize that recreational use exists, and we should be tolerant to responsible use regardless if the intention is for pleasure, experimentation, exploration, ritual or spirituality. One cannot observe nor control what is going on inside your head, so it is futile to try to enforce it one way or the other. By allowing non-conformist use of these substances, we allow others the freedom to discover their own spiritual path. --Thoric 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Well, I have thought about it, and there are two main solutions that I see. The first is to try to edify the article that allready exists. I think this would do well for the "Mergist" Wikipedia agenda, considering that the other option i see is to move it to "Entheogenic Psychonaut."
I wouldn't suggest combining the two terms. There should be adequate linkage between Entheogen and Psychonaut, but I don't think the two can be combined. My only suggestion would be to have a "Recreational use" section of the

Prometheuspan 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Yes, a big issue, handled by the location of the topic of entheogen down below all of the rest of the more important information first. The whole point i think was not in merging or linking two things, what i was saying in some senses is that the current article misses the boat completely by focusing on the wrong thing. It is a great article for entheogens, and a great article for entheogenic psychonauts. As >Psychonaut< It is wildly empty of important core details. Prometheuspan 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychonaut article, and state that psychonauts generally consider their primary use of psychedelics to be above that of recreation, although they may use psychedelics to enhance creativity and appreciation for art, music and film. Then have a "See Recreational drug use" link. --Thoric 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC) I don' think that deserves a link, to be truthful. Everybody knows what recreational use is; our job is to define this alternative. Prometheuspan 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

okay, well, i followed your link, and, its awesome, and i am totally thankful that detail exists actually, but, its not half as important as the other pages you missed. The red spaces? Those are what needs to be filled in.? I'm going to take a break for a bit, I know you have plenty to chew on by now.

Thanks again for your time and energy. Prometheuspan 23:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi prometheuspan,
the word "psychonaut" is almost always used to refer to people using hallucinogens- check out google search results, for instance. Because of that I don't think that moving the article or changing the way we use the term here at wikipedia would be warranted. however, as you rightly point out, what it comes down to is not the use of hallucinogens but rather trance technology, and the article should certainly reflect this. I don't think that needs two seperate articles, as imo they seem to go hand in hand.
Also, I find it interesting that you seem to equate the term "psychonaut" with shamanic practice. Due to its common conotations- as thoric says, not always spiritually/etc inclined- it is a word that most people i have encountered that are serious in shamanic study or practice are vehemently opposed to. Among these people, "psychonaut" is used to refer to Zoe7 types who spout conspiracy theories and just really like taking hallucinogens to get "out there" rather than people pursuing sincere and productive callings in either traditional healing or spiritual betterment. (which is also somewhat counter to the current article.) I personally wouldn't equate the term "psychonaut" with the term "shaman", even if "shaman" is taken to include michael harner/core shamanism/new age types.
somewhat irrelevantly as regards this conversation, I also might have some disagreement with your claim that no sane person would make drugs the center of their shamanic practice. many many many shamanic traditions place a drug at the core- say, ayahuasca or yopo in south america, and fly agarics amongst siberians. But of course this does not in any way equate drinking ayahuasca with being a shaman or shamanic practice- hence my "might have some disagreement". while a drug may be the core shamanic technology utilized by a culture or tradition, there are of course a million other things that go along with that. I guess that's along the same lines as how having a mystical experience doesn't make you a zen master- there's just so much more to it . . .
cheers
--Heah talk 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice graphic

Generic Solutions may tend to be dumbed down; your mileage may vary. That graphic is the best map of that Schema I have personally ever seen, you might as well run with it, and move on to the other more accurate Classification Schema.

Thanks for the compliments. I had enough trouble fighting people contesting the chart because they didn't feel it accurately mapped the current drug classification schema, so I would imagine that one based on one that is less established would be rejected outright ;) --Thoric 19:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Sometimes i think people get all caught up in deciding wether or not a Schema is THE BEST ONE and they loose sight of the fact that we can go ahead and explore all of them simultaneously.

The most interesting thing about that Schema is its very origins, evolution, and longstanding arguments. I think its a handy simple map, especially to simplify to the uneducated person.

Yes, of course, any geek knows that those are strange approximations that are actually derived from real values that are completely different than those...but so what? Explore the biochemistry in the next article, make a few links and get on to the next thing, says i.

Theres a lot of arguing, in my opinion, in science circles, about how schema x and y are so contrary to each other; but I am never seeing that, I am seeing the ways that they compliment, refine, and explain each other. To me, Quantum Mechanics and Creation Theology are not mutually exclusive; but then again, it takes an esoteric knowledge of Judaic symbolism to understand the finer points of the Genesis myth. Thats one example...

)

[edit] PsychoNautica

  • 1. Brain Anatomy
  • 2. Hemispheres of Brain
  • 3. Process Typing Functions, Hemisphere Locations, Types of Internal Dialogue.
  • 4. Brainwaves
  • a Beta Brain Waves Brain Waves
  • b Alpha Alpha Brain waves
  • c Delta Delta Brain waves
  • d Theta Theta Brain waves
  • 5. The Tree of Life
  • 6. Totemic mythic ArchitectureT.M.A.
  • 7. Dream Journals Lucid Dreaming
  • 8. Sleep Deprivation
  • 9. Sensory Deprivation
  • 10. Hypnotic Metaprocess Hemispheric Communication
  • a; Trance Technologies
  • 11. Instinct, Memory, Symbol
  • 12. motion, communication, forethinker, planner
  • 13. Egotism, Ethnocentrism, Pack Psychology , Groupthink , Cogency , Ethics
  • 14. Lucid Visualization
  • 15. Alpha Inductive Metaprocess
  • 16. Delta Inductive Metaprocess
  • 17. Theta Inductive Metaprocess
  • 18. The Sleep/Waking Control Vector
  • 19. Psychology of Psychonautics
  • 20. Shadow Psychology, Shadowsmirror , Karma
  • 21. Nueromuscular Electricity , Electrolysis Photography , Biomagnetics , The Sensory Apparatus of the Reptilian Brain...
  • 22. Glossolia (Glossololia...)
  • 23. Subtle Anatomy
  • 24. The Psyches Labyrinth Psyche Labyrinth
  • 25. Metaphysics
  • 26. Quantum Mechanics
  • 27. Ritual; Its useful functions
  • 28. Pack Psychology
  • 29. Herd Psychology
  • 30. Geek Psychology
  • 31. Enter the Matrix
  • 32. Sociology
  • 33. Social Psychology
  • 34. Normative Psychology , Socialization , Education ,...
  • 35. Psychology of Propaganda
  • 36. Conversational Logic
  • 37. Paradigms
  • 38. Subtle Physics
  • 39. Metaphysics and PsuedoScience and Alternative Sciences...
  • 40. Ecological Ergonomics
  • 41. Entheogenic Chemistry
  • 42. Entheogenic Metaphysics
  • 43. Entheogenic Protocols
  • 44. Entheogens
  • (Arival to move oddity at line goto function...lol
  • Entheogenic PsychoNaut

Prometheuspan 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So, where am i going with all of this? The guy over in the magic section offering me a proffessorship and all..very flattering...I'm not against going whole hog to edit articles, but i think a lot will probably be saved on the front end if we talk about my version of potential details, and where they fit into the current architectures. I don't really know the program very well, So I feel a bit meek about jumping out to write an article yet, not to mention nobody knows who i am or where i am really coming from yet on Wikipedia...

I told him what I'll tell you. With extreme dyslexia, I'd rather just chat with the proffessors and play the role of a research assistant. (Give me my own little place to start a from scratch architecture, and that would definitely make it more worth my time and energy to really get to know the program better...)

I hope that this clarifies fully my position. Thanks. Prometheuspan 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I'll have to admit I find it a little difficult to keep up with your thought processes ;) Seeing as you like to cover a wide range of interconnected subjects... let me offer a tidbit to get your opinion on...

Consider for a moment that the primary particle of the Universe is just that -- a single particle, rather than a nearly infinite collection of infitesimally small particles -- and that this single particle exists beyond our definition of space and time. Essentially this "particle" (existing beyond time) can take however long it likes from its perspective to meander through the cosmos, while from our perspective it exists nearly everywhere at once.

This "particle" would simultaneously be everywhere and everything. It would be so very small and very fast that you couldn't see it, yet at the same time so very large and very expansive that you couldn't see more than a small part of it... yet you are also part of it.

Would this particle not be God?

--Thoric 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, it might also be a non-standard version of a Tachyon

I have greatly complicated matters now by actually editing the Article; Thrusting it into a state of Chaos and Construction which I know I won't be able to entirely fix by tonight.

I hope that you will agree that the Article needed to go in this direction when you reflect upon it, and I look foreward to working with you on it and other articles.

I agree the article needed expanding, and you certainly accomplished that ;)I might suggest in the future that you create an offline version of the article in a subpage of your talk page so that you can complete a major rewrite without leaving the main article in a disrupted state for too long. Please don't let that discourage you from contributing :) --Thoric 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Also keep in mind that encyclopedia articles should organized such that the most pertinent information to the topic is readily available (easy to locate), and more detailed information is discussed towards the bottom of the article, or in the case where there is an overwhelming volume of information it is instead summarized briefly in the main article, and detailed within secondary articles specific to the sub-topic.

Prometheuspan 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) The idea of writing it offline is a great one. Honestly, I am very pleased with the current final outcome, Heah did a great job. Like I tried to say, I am not sure I am really the best person to write Articles, certainly not till i get my head wrapped around Wikipedia better. Writing a slightly chaotic rewrite which would get the attention of Wikipedians, and get them to find a Happy middle was overall a great Tactic, and it worked marvelously, overall.

Rather than try to write "offline", I'd rather write in the "discussion" pages, that way all of my work is transparent to Other Wikipedians. It didn't seem like that particular tactic was working. Maybe next time. Prometheuspan 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

If one assumes a standard Tachyon is actually alone by itself in the universe, and is just knitting all the rest of the singularities,

then in that contingent thought experiment universe, exactly what you said explains the most holotropic aspects of Quantum reality, non-localized phenomenon, and so forth.

Its an interesting metaphor.

Yes, I am all over the place, that may happen if you read too many textbooks...

P

Prometheuspan 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite of psychonaut

Hi P.,

I've just rewritten your rewrite of psychonaut. I've tried to retain as much as possible, but some of it wasn't exactly relevant to a discussion of "psychonaut"- eg, rather than detailing the nature of brain waves, it makes more sense to just give a little info and link to Electroencephalography for readers to peruse at their own leisure. Other stuff was problematic, such as your discussion of the parts of brain or lines like "Some might say that Entheogens are EASY, If you want something HARD Try Lucid Dreaming". Claims made on wikipedia have to be verifiable (how to cut up the brain is not at all agreed upon by neuroscientists and whatnot), and we have to take a "neutral" point of view, meaning you can't simply say some things are hard and some are easy. Rather, you can say something like "Many claim that x is easier than y" and be able to cite those claims with published materials.

So i'd highly suggest that before engaging in any big overhauls you read the wikipedia guidelines on using external links, Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, the verifiability standards, and the Manual of style to get a better idea of how articles should be written and what is considered "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" when writing articles.

With that said, thanks for contributing! Judging by the discussion on your talk page you seem to be highly intelligent, have plenty to contribute, and that you think a lot about all this stuff, which is awesome; you've just got to do a little reading so you can see exactly how to put all of this into the wikipedia.

cheers and happy editing

--Heah talk 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks Heah, you did an awesome job, and I really appreciate you very much for it. Sorry to dump so much on your plate, but it seemed the only reasonable way to proceed, given the discussion i was having. Prometheuspan 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

heh- it was no problem, really. you had good ideas and plenty to add; when i first saw it i just wasn't sure i was up to the task of rearranging it. But i went for it anyways, because simply reverting all the stuff you had added seemed kinda counter productive, as the info was good. so i'm glad i did- like kit says, the article is better now.

i agree Prometheuspan 03:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

as per it being the only way to proceed, sometimes you just got to give it some time.

I'm not sure about that in this case...I have had a lot of experiences with Shtopple. I should admit that the thing that convinced me i might not be being listened to was having the conversation transfered out of his user talk page and over to mine. In the past, this has always been a clear indication that somebody isn't going to listen, and may be getting geared up to go on the defensive. Maybe Thoric isn't like that, I don't know, but I didn't want to find out the hard way.

Like i hadn't even seen the conversation at all until right before you started working on the article.

would you have EVER seen it, if i hadn't gone out of my way to pick it back up by rewriting the article? The disambiguation page comment sat there for about a week and a half with not a single response. When the conversation got moved to my own talk page, it became, obviously, a matter of making certain I would be heard, not shoved into a closet.

 so i created a user page- User:Heah/symp (I've had it deleted now)- to do all the work on.

That is an excellent hot tip, and i will keep it in my bag o tricks. I was beginning to wonder what was done if a discussion page ran over the limit, for instance.

that way you can keep an eye on the layout and linking and whatnot as you work, then cut and paste into the real article when you are done.  after that you can put a speedy delete tag on the page and someone will delete it, or you can keep it and do all your future work on the same page.

so, for instance, I'd just write prometheuspans' SandBox and then there i'd be? Are there protocols i should be aware of? Thanks! Prometheuspan 03:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

take care
Heah talk 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] common usage, etc

the word "psychonaut" is almost always used

If, for instance, you ran a search engine on say "Pentagram" you might come up with a lot more hits from the Christian or Satanist POV by far than any other, including pagan. Does that mean that the ignorant POV is the correct one? No, it just means that ignorant people are many and educated people few.

"however, as you rightly point out, what it comes down to is not the use of hallucinogens but rather trance technology,"

We could chalk it up to self justification 101. The entire body of articles hinges on having a reasonable ethical self justification. There wasn't one. I'd hate to see you all do all that work, only to end up with somebody knotting you in over to the POV report page, and then having the consensus be to delete all the materials. By having a well thought out background that is not drug orientated, and placing Entheogenic use in the context of a full and entire total practice, you save yourselves from exactly the kinds of arguments Thoric assumed he was having with me. (The fact that i kept saying, in essence, 1+1=2 and he kept saying, in essence, "Whats your problem with 3?" kind of leads me to think that subliminally, even he knew the ethical argument was full of holes.)

and the article should certainly reflect this. I don't think that needs two seperate articles, as imo they seem to go hand in hand. Also, I find it interesting that you seem to equate the term "psychonaut" with shamanic practice. Due to its common conotations- as thoric says, not always spiritually/etc inclined- it is a word that most people i have encountered that are serious in shamanic study or practice are vehemently opposed to.

Thats interesting, because I have participated in several different adult Shamanic/Pagan communities, and the only connotation is that Shamanic use means with the actual Shamanic protocols, whereas Psychonautic use means winging it, and then recreational use means not having a center. Then again, those were pretty off the beaten path groups. In any case, I like to call a spade a spade and a rose a rose.

I also might have some disagreement with your claim that no sane person would make drugs the center of their shamanic practice.

I'm not sure that we aren't talking past each other again. To be clear, there is no such thing as entheogenic use outside of the context of Shamanism. Shamanism is a whole lot of reality models. Entheogens are just one part of that. You can't just pick up detail 42c-57b and run with it, thats New Age Theivery. Responsible and honest Shamanic use means being familiar with the sum total of a Shamanic System. Psychonauts stretch that definition, and so theres a lot of room for Shamans to look down their noses at Psychonauts. BUT, the point is, PsychoNauts are a non-denominational overall batch. There are Christian Psychoanuts, Buddhist PsychoNauts, Pagan PsychoNauts...The list goes on and on. There >are< Shamanic Psychonauts.

many many many shamanic traditions place a drug at the core- say, ayahuasca or yopo in south america, and fly agarics amongst siberians.

I'm sorry, thats just not true. Yes, they do the Entheogens, and yes it is a core aspect of the practice, but as far as what the true core system is, no, what they beleive in as the center of their system is generally some form of Animism/Pantheism.

The dangerous part of putting a drug at the center of ones spiritual practice, in the way that i meant it, and in the way that Psychonaut the article was doing until i made a noise, is fixation and addiction, as well as overidentification with the drug.


But of course this does not in any way equate drinking ayahuasca with being a shaman or shamanic practice- hence my "might have some disagreement". while a drug may be the core shamanic technology utilized by a culture or tradition, there are of course a million other things that go along with that. I guess that's along the same lines as how having a mystical experience doesn't make you a zen master- there's just so much more to it . . .

becoming enlightened doesn't even make you a zen master even. You have to become enlightened using Zen as your primary system to be a Zen Master. Using Entheogens as a psychoNaut doesn't make you a Shaman. It does mean that if you are doing it right, you are following in the context generally of Shamanism.

cheers --Heah talk 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Prometheuspan 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw you were stressed...

Just thought I'd say Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry about the stress. It comes and goes. Sometimes are better than others, so hang in there, and I'm sure it will wan. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. It's how we learn things. See you around. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. on the offhand that you are still around, where would you go if you wanted to get some fresh perspective on an article? As in, jump over the heads of the folks who are making it a bother to try? Prometheuspan 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can try WP:30 (3rd opinion on an article), or perhaps file an RfC (request for comment). You can review the various steps in resolving disputes here at Wikipedia here. Hope this answers your question. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] psychonaut article

Use of the term Psychonaut is a modern term, used to describe one who uses trance technologies, and sometimes, more specifically, mind-altering substances more with a view to their ability to act as entheogens, than for their inebriating (or social) effect. In effect, they are used as a means to achieve states of mind in which different perceptions unhindered by everyday mental filters and processes can arise. As such, psychonauts beleive that when used with this intent, their effects, can be life altering, and are not considered by their proponents to be mere hallucinations. An alternate description is that while some aspects of the experience may be hallucinatory, the realizations caused by those hallucinations, and the mental, emotional and long term impact of the experience, is real, usually positive, and enduring.

Some would argue that the original Psychonauts have been those willing to use Schema from outside the mainstream cultures they lived in. Shamanism is inherantly the practice of ones own cultures religious beliefs. Psychonauts import Shamanistic systems from other cultures. The original Eclectic.Eclecticism

If this is so, the grandfathers of the more modern Psychonaut Movement would be the Merkaba Mystics, Judaic Esotericists who combined Tree of Life and Qaballah Systems from Egypt and implemented them via their own versions of Shamanistic code indigenous to the Hebrews. Some might also argue that modern reconstructionist religions, Such as "Wicca" are inherantly Psychonautical explorations, because of the kind of eclecticicsm involved in trying to recreate an inherantly lost system. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is often associated with neoshamanic practices; however, many distinguish between the mental exploration of the psychonaut and authentic, healing-oriented shamanic practice. Some prominent, self-proclaimed psychonauts such as Zoe7 are somewhat controversial figures within the psychedelic scene, often accused of cultural appropriation and a disregard for the methods and purposes of traditional shamanic uses of psychedelics and other trance technologies.

There is actually an ongoing political schism, forged mostly between the differing interests of the Shamanistic Purists and the intellectual Atheists, over how much of what to bother to take seriously. Splitting the difference between those two camps is the hardest factor in rendering a "neutral pov" for this article.

Brain function Psychonautics can be considered an attempt to generate a users manual for the human brain. Unlike its near cousin, psychology, which is concerned with understanding other people, psychonauts are more concerned with understanding themselves, and the process of self exploration; accordingly, they engage in direct exploration of themselves and their own thought processes.

As such, psychonauts seek to understand mental process and functioning and employ such knowledge in their activities. Key to this is auto-modification of brain wave frequenecies, which can lead to quite distinct perceptual states; a detailed examination and understanding of one's own thought processes, habits, and beliefs is also sought. Hallucinatory states, drug-induced or otherwise, are seen as a form of subliminal symbolism or as a real but distinct reality; as with other processes of the mind, psychonauts seek to understand these. Psychological theories and concepts are also often taken into account, particularly those of Carl G. Jung and Abraham Maslow.

as long as we are making a list, pavlov is very relevant here as the saving grace of Shamanistic practices. The biggest saviour versus addiction is the capacity to reproduce a near equivalent state to an Entheogenic state via hynogogic trance and post hypnotic suggestion. Without that, some Entheogens, such as opium, rapidly become a downwardly spiral into addiction and self destruction. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is also ideally practically applied in bettering one's self through the knowledge of one's own thought processes; with this understanding and heightened perception of one's own internal dialogue, it is thought that one is more able to control their own ego, and detach themselves from what is seen as a herd mentality common to modern culture.

wow, i can't believe how much you squeezed into that paragraph. I suppose from there, i just think it should be wikified. Can we distribute a "How to escape" Ego interjection over on the ego page? Eclectic and paradigm could probabaly be squeezed in with only another short phrase. lol.

Mythical archetypes and concepts

Tree of life with aura.

This is sweet of you, but the maps we need are

  • 1 Tree of life superimposed over Brain, reptilian brain at malkut,

Keter at crown chakra, brain seen from side angle, middle pillar off making Binah and the sefirot below it into the Neo-Cortex.

  • 2 The tree of life superimposed running from frontal lobe (neocortex) To Occipital lobe, from the top view, looking down,

neocortex malkut, occipital lobes keter, and coded to explain how the occipital lobes provide "visual stimulus" To the Neocortex (considering where the optic nerves go.)

  • 3 The Tree of life superimposed over just the Neocortex, coded to

show Brain wave specific brain states.(operational geers of the Conscious mind for altered states of consciousness.)


Again, I'd love to show images of the tree of life as normally shown in the middle cosm and macrocosm applications, but that would become a tree of life gallery here, and doesn't belong in this article. More importantly, that specific application of the Tree of life should be a late foot note over on a Tree of life exploration, because the macrocosm and middle cosm are the primary concern of Qaballah. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The page could certainly use more pics; i grabbed the current one off of the Sephirot article. the closest thing i can think of is like Alex Grey or something, but then we run into copyvio issues. although again, i don't really think that this article is the place to be explaining how occipital lobes provide visual stimulus to the neocortex; on the other hand, as a caption to a picture, that might make sense. --Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Okay, well, that is three pics. If we only have three pics, thats two too many for Qaballah. I think a labeled picture of the brodmans areas is more important than just about anything else. As the title to an image, I think it makes great sense. I can even draw the whole thing over here, so we aren't theiving from anybody if it comes to that. There is a lot of useful information contained in that reality model, more than might be initially obvious. The trick is to give it that photo op treatment, because actually explaining the photo would take the whole article, and it is a set of details that could be pieced together pretty easilly, once you have the macromap to look at. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychonauts commonly place much emphasis on various mythical archetypes and concepts, believing that these are useful to coming to understand one's own thought patterns and the nature of existence, reflecting realities and meanings that should be understood, rather than being irrelevant fantasy. As in shamanic practice, the Axis mundi is often employed, often overlayed with chakras and other relevant concepts of bodily function; the Kabbalist Tree of Life and its chakra-like sephirot is one notable example of this in mythology. The nature of karma is often explored in trying to understand one's own situation, actions, and relation to the outside world.

The linking of Alpha condition to Visual information and thus and so forth and( alpha waves and the occipital lobes.) is the critical Schema here, and it is almost missing. The symbols used almost don't matter as much as having a large set. Symbols are good for making useful discriminations, and as a precursur to visual language. If you want to have lucid dreams, start with dream journals. If you want to experience talking to God, again, this is going to take clearing through and into a dynamic internal conversaion which STARTS at the communication between the Neo-Cortex and the Occipital Lobes. This leads into the other stuff regarding sleep deprivation, halucination, (its funny how it all rols together) etcetera. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but see we can't say this stuff without being able to cite it from a reputable publication . . . --Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Right, never mind the talking to god part. The Communication between lobes part shouldn't be that hard to find reputable information to back up on. I'm willing to do Google searches, or whatever else you guys do for research around here. I feel pretty certain materials hsould be fairly forthcoming. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Metaphysics Psychonauts are often interested in metaphysics, the branch of philosophy dealing with the ultimate nature of reality or existance; it is thought that in coming to some understanding of how the universe functions and the nature of existance, one would be better able to govern themselves accordingly and integrate their life experiences.

If that is how small we need to condense that again, you did a great job. I couldn't have squeezed that much into one paragraph to save my soul. I think that mentioning macrocosm and Microcosm and invocation and evoke -ation are important here. Psycheonautry is mostly about going inside, but what is that deep inside ends up mostly experienced by means of its relationships with things outside of the self. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, macrocosm and microcosm certainly warrant a mention at the very least, with those inside/outside connections . . . but i'll have to make it brief to avoid rambling about fractals and scale and resonances and other non-verifiable stuff . . . --

Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, well, fractals do apply here as the means by which the standard low level halucination are generated. That is an extraneous detail, probably fine to mention in some other article, like say, fractals. I defineitely see each one of those topics as doors i might otherwise put entire paragrpahs behind, but if we can just slide them in with a single sentence or two, thats obviously going to be much better for Wikipedias purposes. Echolating scale ought to be its own article, it has applications in Physics, MetaPhysics, and Consciousness, as well as Holography and Holomorphics. I bet there isn't an article on holomorphics, but that is where that conversation ends up. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh i'm going to have to strongly disagree with that! fractals are the way the macrocosm and the microcosm relate- its all a question of scale, what you're looking at and what your focal length is . . . --Heah talk 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC) i agree with you, but i am not sure that is the most relevant point. as i am sure you have noticed i have taken a break from this because i thought it would be better that way. In a week or so, I will come back to the project once it has had time to get subliminally digested as a metaproblem. Many of my assumptions about how to present information, and in particular format, are obviously askew here, and i appreciate your tolerance with my learning curve. It would be unfair to rush headlong into level two of my learning curve without first applying myself to learn the ropes around here a little better. My thoughts at this time are that i could generate an axiomatic analysis and about 10 "see alsos" off the top of my head. I'm not sure whether this is really useful or just placing more work on somebodies shoulders. I think the smarter course of action is for me to visit all of those places, and get a broader and deeper feel for the network before i start linking, and potentially overlinking it. It is obvious to me now whatthe difference in function between wikipedia and wikibooks is, and its obvious to me that eventually, I'll want to start a wikibook on the subject. Obviously, Wikipedia will be my primary source material in that endeavor. I also need to review all of wikipedias assorted policies, guidelines, and so forth; I need to orientate myself as a wikipedian rather than a fly by. All of that said, maybe it will be two or three weeks. Anyways, thanks for everything. I have cleared the big noise from the psychonaut discussion area.

)

Prometheuspan 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hallucinogens/entheogens The technology and practice most often associated with psychonauts is the use of psychedelic drugs for mental exploration. The method of use varies widely; such usage is often (but not always) entheogenic and informed by traditional shamanic uses of psychedelic drugs and rituals surrounding such usage.

I think this is the place where we make the point that there are Atheist Psychonauts, Shamanistic Psychonauts, Wiccan Psychonauts, New Age Psychonauts, Christian Psychonauts, Judaic Psychonauts, Hindu Psychonauts, I.E this is where we finally unfurl the disclosure about how many different POVs this covers. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think that should go earlier, perhaps in a paragraph following the one that starts "the term is often associated with neoshamanic practices . . . ". It seems to make more sense there. thoughts? --Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) yes, it FITS there, but, i think it also fits HERE? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but my observation is that its easier on the reader in terms of details down here, and its less likely to set off somebodies mental censor bells without even reading the article down here. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly fits both places, but it might be better to put in a more introductory part, clarifying what a psychonaut is before we get into practices and technologies and whatnot. --Heah talk 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • DMT ; A very heavy and intense trip, not recomended for first time

users without a babysitter. Don't do this more than once a month, and if you have done it twelve months in a row, don't do it again for five years.

  • LSD

Not as intense, depending on dose, as DMT. Not technically an Entheogen of the Elitist Shamanic set because it is artificial. First time users probably need a Babysitter Don't do this more than once or twice a month, but don't worry, its not physically addictive. It can become psychologically addictive, and again, thus, if you have done it for a few months, take a break for a while and prove to yourself that you are coping without it.

  • Marijuana

Probably the safest Entheogen and the only one of the standard set to do with any frequency, possibly excluding salvia. Probably don't need a Sitter. Maximum periodicity advisable is about once every three days, however, many people do use marijuana much more frequently than that, and without serious consequences.

  • Psychedelic Mushrooms

Depending on dosage, Mushrooms can be very mellow or very intense. It is best to start with a sleight test dose first, and work ones way up slowly to a Shamanic dose, which is a trip equal in intensity Acid.

  • Mescaline

Known to Shamans as a dangerous and fickle Ally, Mescalito is a very complicated drug which will require probably both previous experience with other entheogens, a babysitter, and a firm conviction not to do this frequently, because it does have an addictive nature.

  • Salvia Divinorum

A very interesting and unique example, Salvia divinorum at low doses offers the best halucinogenic properties because they require the use of Shamanic skills to maintain. People smoke Salvia all the time and complain of having no effect. I always ask them what they did for the hi. The best thing to do is to seal yourself in a totally dark room, because that is the only way the halucinations are going to roll easilly. Happy point? Those halucinations can be as real and intense as DMT, but if you want to bail out of the trip, just turn on the light.


  • Ayahuasca

I'm not qualified to comment, because i only vaguely know about this one. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, i don't think further info fits. for starters, all of these articles are fairly filled out, so with a link one can access all the info. second, as to wiki policies and guidelines, we don't give advice, medical or otherwise, which includes warnings and whatnot. and plus things like "Don't do it more than once a month" are inherently pov.

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) okay, well, yes and no. There are inherant periodicity functions based only on biochemistry and addictive process. I think I wrote that to you, not recomending that it go in the article. I think information like that might want to go up somewhere, eventually, like "Responsible Use" and so forth. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be a way to work in some general warning or something couched in a phrase like "many suggest . . . " or something, but i don't know.

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) All of those details need to backed by the relevant biochemistry and science. I'm not pulling those figures out of my >>void<<, it just looks that way. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


And an aside irrelevant to this conversation . . . Salvia is something i have only started working with recently and is incredibly interesting. After the first time, I was convinced that Salvia takes you to the same place you go every night, outside of REM sleep; its the dreaming of all the other sleep cycles. (i mean, it's not as if your consciousness just disapears for 3 hours at a time . . . ) unfortunately now that i'm back at school i've found that it doesn't really get along with the massive amounts of coffee and ritalin i take. just the wrong vibe; they don't harmonize and the salvia is unable to fully manifest itself. But i've really got to give up the ritalin anyways.

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, well Ritalin is an inhibitor, i think, and its a known supernasty with megabad side effects. Salvia is very finicky, she only works for a fairly stable mind in the first place, it seems like. Its kind of like any kind of serious distortion or imbalance overwhelms her song, which is a tiny, soft little voice.

As to ayahuasca . . . Other than some excursions with an acacia and salvia, its for the most part the only ally i've been working with for a few years. (and of course such work took place only where it's completely legal.) It's interesting, to say the least . . . --Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done it, mostly because Mushrooms and Acid were sufficient for me in combination with non-Entheogenic practices to achieve waking Theta conditions. Knowing I had arrived at the goal didn't really encourage me to do lots more Entheogenic work. More the reverse, actually. Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What it took me a long time to realize is that the real work doesn't actually begin until you get to the goal . . . --Heah talk 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dreams As dreams are considered by psychonauts to be a window into thought processes, many keep dream journals in order to better remember dreams and further their understanding of their own symbolic internal dialogue. Many attempt to not only remember their dreams, but engage in lucid dreaming, in which one learns to directly control their dreams and hopefully gain more control over their own thought process and hallucinogenic experiences. Some go so far as to engage in lucid visualization, in which one enters a dream-like state while fully conscious.

This then links upward to halucination. See the order? Its Symbology, lucid Visualization, Lucid Dreaming, Lucid Halucinating.

Ritual Ritual is often employed for purposes of grounding and centering one's self, to set one's focus and intentions, and to instill a conception of the significance and depth of psychonautical practice. Repeated use of ritual may also train the brain to associate certain activities and states of consciousness with specific situations, creating deeper experiences and allowing one to more easily enter altered states of consciousness.

Really all good ritual amounts to Pavlovian cues. "We do this", because "this" represents something happening in the psyche. A lot of "Ceremonial Magickians" get lost in that, they mistake the physical actions, words, or deeds for psychic events. Magick isn't about what happens in the physical universe, it is what happens on the plane of the psyche. All a ritual does is let everybody who is participating know in concert when to take a psychic action. Prometheuspan 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, i wouldn't say that that's all it does. It's useful on an individual level as well . . . --Heah talk 00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Very true, it helps with the focus and the self discipline, all i am saying is trying to distill it down to the minimum of what needs to be said. Which in this case i think is Ivan Pavlov.

[edit] re

yeah, that's totally cool; but instead of just deleting, it's good to archive stuff- move it on to a new page accessible from the old talk page. so i put it all at talk:Psychonaut/archive1, so it doesn't get disapeared. cheers --Heah talk 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding watchlists

Those extra items on your watchlist are due to page move vandalism. If a page that you are watching gets moved to an obscene title, both titles will be on your watchlist until you remove them, even if the page is quickly be moved back, and the redirect at the bad title is deleted. For example, see [1]. — Mar. 24, '06 [03:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] starship

hiya p

project looks very interesting and intense. i'd be happy to help out a bit, although i'm not sure how much free time i'll have for the next month or so- i have to write my thesis and whatnot, schools over in a month and a half and i'm only about a 5th of the way through it. But after that i'll have more free time . . .

So point me somewhere and i'll do what i can.

--He:ah? 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as pointing goes, that is kewl for you to offer yourself into the situation like that...Anything you are interested in is a great place to jump in. I was sort of looking for some sounding board off of you on where to go with what to do next. I am sort of spinning in fifty directions, need about 50 people to help, and know that it is actually going to be about having my priorities in order. I'm on spring break, my computer lab is closed. The exciting thing just now is i seem to have picked up 1 other participant from Yahoo groups with a Doctorate in civil Engineering. (YAY!!)

1. How does one go about asking the collective for help with a project? Is there a "please help with my project" page? 2. Should I try to be the droid bot and fill in all the blanks i can for all of the different departments, or should i focus on just one department as a sort of "template"? 3. Is there a sensible way to go about asking Wikipedia and Wikicities and Wikispecies to throw their two cents in so that i don't have to do it? (As in, "Yo, come on over and tell us about where there are links to useful information sos we don't miss nothing important and instead of duplicating work we can get ahead of the game that way?" Prometheuspan 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] better source for 2004 election irregularities

Prometheus, here is a much better source: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Kevin Baastalk 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

wow. I had been assuming all this time that wikipedia would never have gotten involved, what with all of the NPOV and so forth. Thanks for the hot tip. I should have searched wikipedia for electoral fraud etc to start with. It just never occured to me that there would be stuff here allready. Thanks!!! Prometheuspan 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

We cover controversial issues. But we cover them thoroughly, factually, and very NPOV. That, in my opinion, is one of wikipedia's strenghts: it's ability, through fair process in a diverse community, to deal with controversial issues better than a lot of other sources. Kevin Baastalk 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the comments

Well, I have often thought that it is hard to have the good without the bad. It is a case of, How do we define what is good, if we don't define anything as bad. Everything would just be "normal", neither good nor evil. In the grand scheme of things, that is the theory behind all dualism. If there is a good God, there must me a bad God. I don't really believe all of that, but some do. I do think there needs to be a villian. In fiction, conflict drives a story. What would a protagonist be without an antagonist? In the real world, some deem others evil in order to feel like they are "good". But there does seem to be a constant cycle of evil. There always seems to be a "sleeper cell" of evil always waiting in the wings. The good people in the world defeat the evil, and a new evil arises in it's place some time later. Sometimes good wins, sometimes bad wins. In fiction, I feel good wins far too often. It doesn't truly reflect reality. But that's beside the point. I have been in and out of writing this, so if it doesn't make sense, my apologies.

Basically, I like Lord Voldemort, as he seems a much better character. It seems he is a much deeper character. I think I have commented something of this sort before. You may want to see the quotes on this page. Oh well, sorry for the rambling. I'm just a little out of it to get into a deep psychological discussion at the moment. See you aorund. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That was an interesting journey to go look around on that page. I'm glad that at least you apreciated the comments. I could go on and on for ...welll days, but it seems that it might be better to wait till you are more "in it." Thanks for your reply. Prometheuspan 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem... thanks for your patience. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

[2] Notice copyright at bottom of page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Please take the time to make your comments legible and organized, and please refrain from posting identical material in more than one place on the page. Please also post new material at the bottom of the page. Following these basic talk page conventions will make your comments clearer and more easily digestible, and other users will analyze them with greater seriousness. Regards, Christopher Parham (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is the person responsible for this mess. By illegally deleting my comments, merecat made my only option to grab my comments back from the history. I am sorry for the mess, but blame merecat.

I am sorry if i have double posted things, it gets confusing when you are a few rounds deep into having things vanished on you.

Until this is resolved and Merecat is taken off of the article, theres not a lot of point in cleaning anything up; i allready cleaned things up only to have them deleted AGAIN. Prometheuspan 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While Merecat may be antagonizing you, there's many things you can do to make your comments more readable; for instance, please do not use horizontal bars (created by placing more than four dashes in a row) to separate your text from the rest of the page. Also, please refrain from using leading spaces to indent any substantial amount of text, as that text will not wrap to the screen width. Many thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)