None of the Above ([info]artis) rakstīja,
@ 2015-06-29 19:08:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Jonathan Ott, Proemium, https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pharmacotheon/pharmacotheon_proemium.shtml

" Despite overwhelming scientific and experiential evidence to the contrary, human beings are conceived of as a special creation apart from other animals, and we are enjoined to subdue the world, which is matter. This horrible superstition has led to the despoiling and ruin of our biosphere, and to the crippling neurosis and guilt of modern people (Hofmann 1980). I call this a superstition because when people have direct, personal access to entheogenic, religious experiences, they never conceive of humankind as a separate creation, apart from the rest of the universe. "Every thing that lives is Holy," us included, and the divine infuses all the creation of which we are an integral part. As the dualistic superstition took root in our ancestors' minds, their first task was to destroy all aspects of ecstatic, experiential religion from the archaic ("pagan") world. The destruction of the sanctuary of Eleusis at the end of the fourth century of our era (Mylonas 1961) marked the final downfall of the ancient world in Europe, and for the next millennium the theocratic Catholic Church vigorously persecuted every vestige of ecstatic religion which survived, including revival movements. By the time of the "discovery" of the New World, Europe had been beaten into submission, the "witches" and "heretics" mostly burned, and ecstasy was virtually expunged from the memory of the survivors. For the Catholics, and for the Protestants after them, to experience ecstasy, to have religious experiences, was the most heinous heresy, justifying torture and being burned alive. Is it any wonder that today we have no place for ecstasy?

In the New World, however, the Age of Entheogens and ecstasy lived on, and although in 1620 the Inquisition in Mexico formally declared the use of entheogenic plants like peyotl (see Chapter 1) to be heresy and the Church vigorously extirpated this use and tortured and executed Indian shamans, ecstasy survives there even now. It bears witness to the integrity of the New World Indians that they braved torture and death to continue with their ecstatic religion- they must have been bitterly disappointed in the "placebo sacrament" of the Christian Eucharist, which is a placebo entheogen (Ott 1979b)- and it is largely as a result of the modern rediscovery of the shamanic cult of teonanacatl (see Chapter 5) by R. Gordon Wasson in Mexico in 1955 that the modern use of entheogens, in many respects a revival of ecstatic religion, began. Even though myriad justifications for the modern laws against the entheogens have been offered up, the problem modern societies have with these drugs is fundamentally the same problem the Inquisition had with them, the same problem the early Christians had with the Eleusinian Mysteries- religious rivalry. Since these drugs tend to open people's eyes and hearts to an experience of the holiness of the universe... yes, enable people to have personal religious experiences without the intercession of a priesthood of the preconditioning of a liturgy, some psychonauts or epoptes will perceive the emptiness and shallowness of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition; even begin to see through the secular governments which use religious symbols to manipulate people; begin to see that by so ruthlessly subduing the earth we are killing the planet and destroying ourselves. A "counterculture" having ecstatic experiences in California is quite as subversive (Einhorn 1970) and threatens the power structures in Sacramento or Washington just as much as the rebellious Albigensians or Cathars, Bogomiles, Fraticelli "de opinione," Knights Templar and Waldenisians threatened the power structure in Rome and Mediaeval times (Cohn 1975)."


(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]mindbound
2015-06-29 23:09 (saite)
I don't observe any ontological differences between cults based on deity worship and the ones based on supposed "spiritual messages" derived from substance [ab]use. Cultural, anthropological, historical etc. differences, sure, but I don't believe psychoactive drug-mediated nature-worship is somehow ontologically different from the more strictly theistic religions.

If I'm misreading your point, feel free to correct me.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]garamgajejs
2015-06-30 00:04 (saite)
If we take anthropological point of view, which is comparative, then for instance, Judeo-Christian, Jain, and Buddhist ontologies are different. Now, I am not attempting to argue for the best choice, only pointing out that ontology has much to do with what people believe to be true about reality; and the form and content of their beliefs about the nature of reality are not indefinitely diverse but has variance.
A meta-ontological point that they all are religious traditions and therefore fall into some category or version of idealism or dualism, is acknowledged but as I tried to show, will not elucidate the sociopolitical implications of ontological differences between religious and other, including materialist, traditions. (For that matter, this is why anthropology struggles with the concept of religion itself.)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2015-06-30 00:10 (saite)
I'm starting to think that, when talking about ontology, each of us mean different things. By ontology, I mean basically "what exists" or "what is real", in which case there really is no ontological difference between any two freely chosen religions (because on meta level, dualism and/or idealism doesn't fit the observational data).

I think this is about time I used the standard rationalist trick and asked if you could unpack the word "ontological". Maybe we are arguing about definitions and nothing else.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]garamgajejs
2015-06-30 20:51 (saite)
Instead of me trying to clarify concepts and my use of them (btw, by 'ontology' I mean the same as you do), let me offer a short piece by Descola, one of the leading contemporary theoreticians in anthropology - http://www.booksandideas.net/In-Praise-of-Social-Sciences.html In it, Descola succinctly explains a great deal of what is contextually relevant to what the original quote above attempts to point at.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2015-06-30 22:09 (saite)
Well, I did read the article. For what it's worth, it was succinct, lucid, and managed to get its point across remarkably well, as could be expected from a piece by a domain expert; it's just that I find this particular point rather problematic.

Let me know if and when you'd like to continue this discussion, since I'm afraid right now it could lead to a mass of unwanted comments in another's blog and, at least for me, less than satisfactory contribution (I'm a bit overworked for the time being).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


(Lasīt komentārus) -

Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?