Talk:Psychonaut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
You might want to refer to a conference paper by me entitled 'Psychonautics: a model and method for exploring the subjective effects of psychoactive drugs' (Russell Newcombe, 1999). It can be found on the Drugtext website.
Can we reference this? It sounds a little bogus to me. Mark Richards 21:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Googling finds a few references in this format - seems legit, if pretty marginal. It's also a band's name. - DavidWBrooks 00:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's a legitimate term, slightly slang, but well established. (Plus has over 125,000 google references). Also consider the Black Sabbath song, Supernaut. By reading the lyrics I'm fairly certain it's a play on psychonaut. --Thoric 22:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Albert Hofmann
What evidence/information points towards Hofmann being a psychonaut? Having read some of his writings he does not strike me as such, beyond simply admitting the possibility that LSD could be beneficial to artists. I have seen nothing that suggests Hofmann himself would use things like LSD in a manner similar to other Psychonauts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.155.247 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictions with the Entheogens Page
Paragraph 1 of this page defines a psychonaut as "a person who uses psychoactive entheogens as guides ... quite distinct from religious use...." But the page on Entheogens defines the term entheogens as "that which causes (a person) to be in God," i.e., clearly specifying the term as religious. I think that the real problem is a lack of NPOV on the part of the entheogens page and this page.
- I agree with you that the articles could be clearer, but I don't think it is necessarily an NPOV issue (if it is this is not evidence of such, merely writing that could be improved). However, the definition in 'entheogen' you refer to, 'that which causes a person to be in god', refers to the literal meaning of the Greek syllables that make up the word. The article then goes on to state: In its strictest sense the term refers to a psychoactive substance (most often some plant matter) that occasions enlightening spiritual or mystical experience, within the parameters of a cult, in the original non-pejorative sense of cultus. In a broader sense, the word "entheogen" refers to artificial as well as natural substances that induce alterations of consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of traditional shamanic inebriants, even if it is used in a secular context. Yes, this obviously includes -- but is not limited -- to religious uses.
- The distinction which is being made in the definition of psychonaut, I believe, although very unclearly, is that the term is not, or almost never used to refer to traditional religious use of entheogens. While a psychonaut may certainly seek or obtain spiritual and religious benefit from their substance use, the term is not used to refer to Amazonian shamans making traditional use of ayahuasca, or Native Americans using peyote in religious ceremonies. However, if you or I were to dose up in our bedrooms in the hopes of communing with God, the slang term psychonaut might very well apply. Does this make things clearer? If so I will attempt to improve the article as well along these lines. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Of note, the definition of entheogen is incorrect. It doesn't mean to be in god, but the god within. Entheogens are spiritual, not religious. A psychonaut is a person who travels to uncharted realms of their mind (and entheogens certainly help with this), it could be spiritual, but it is more likely to be intellectual, or simply, "far out, man". --Thoric 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag, which pointed to this discussion page. I don't see a specific, clear issue to resolve, that is present in the article, and that is under debate in the present discussion page; that is, there is no discernable issue to reach some resolution as the criterion for removing the NPOV tag. It's not clear from this discussion page why the NPOV tag was ever posted in the first place. As such, the NPOV tag served no purpose and just cluttered the article. If you insert the NPOV tag, please be specific about what aspect of the article is supposedly NPOV, in this discussion page, so that that point and aspect can be discussed and resolved in order to eventually remove the NPOV tag. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV re: legitimacy & efficacy of psychonautic practice
This was added to the introduction tonight: "It should be noted that this is considered a dangerous practice, and is in no way recommended, nor is it anything resembling a proven concept for an increase in brain function. It is in many ways flawed and violates the concept of observation, as somebody who is under the effect of a neural disrupting substance is impaired in their perception of what is occuring both in their minds and bodies." I figured that something of this nature ought to be discussed before it actually goes into the article, so I took it out to repost here for discussion. What are your thoughts? The Chief 09:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The following assertions from above are all the opposite of the NPOV way of writing: "this is considered a dangerous practice", "is in no way recommended", "nor is it anything resembling a proven concept for an increase in brain function", "It is in many ways flawed and violates the concept of observation", "somebody who is under the effect of a neural disrupting substance is impaired in their perception of what is occuring both in their minds and bodies." Those views are delegitimating, one-sided, oversimplistic, and read like propagandistic writing serving to prop up the status quo Establishment-endorsed received view. There is plenty of literature to mount a full attack against those asserted views and statements. The pro-drug or nuanced and qualified counter-arguments, or opposing view, which is a not uncommon view throughout the literature, must be mentioned, to balance out and form a NPOV. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] William White
Among notable psychonauts is listed William White; this link is to a disambiguation page and there is no contextual information to allow selection of which person is being referred to here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) <-- Copied from the article's AfD by Writtenonsand (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
