Category talk:Entheogens

comments from 2005

I think this category, as it is used, is too arbitrary. It seems from the article [articles, correction] in this category, that the term "entheogen" is used in a loose sense, including any drug which can facilitate mystical/religious experiences. This is problematic as practially any hallucinogen can then be said to be an entheogen, meaning that this category, which is a subcategory of "hallucinogens" should then include everything in the "hallucinogens" category.

I suggest, for the category system to be consistent, that we use "entheogen" in a very strict sense when including articles in this category, meaning that only substances with a (long) history of religious used should be included. This would include e.g. "Ayahuasca", "Kykeon" and "Tobacco", but exclude the new phenethylamines and tryptamines (e.g. 2C-T-21 and amt), "Dimethyltryptamine" (being only a component of an entheogen (as it is proposed used)), and others.

I would like to hear some comments before making any changes. Aenar 16:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree; that is the general tone of the article. more editing might need to be done then; for instance, most of the 2C-B etc articles start off with "an entheogen in the phenethylamine class . . . " but we have some standard usage of "entheogen" as opposed to "hallucinogen" and set up the category accordingly. --Heah 16:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I made an unfortunate typo in my first comment. I meant to say "articles" at the beginning (meaning, the articles belonging to category "entheogens"). My criticism is that the entheogens category currently contains too few articles, and should contain most articles which belong to the category "hallucinogens", if we don't redefine the use of "entheogen" for this category. Alternatively we could use "entheogen" in a strict sense when used for this category and actually make the category useful. Also, if we do this, we should probably note this strict use at the top of the category.

Btw. what is the standard usage of "entheogen" on wikipedia? It seems to me to be more precise for e.g. the 2c-* articles to say that the drug may be used as an entheogen, instead of defining them as entheogens. Aenar 20:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

heh, I read it as "articles" anyways. i like your first suggestion, using entheogen in a strict sense, otherwise there really isn't any point to the category. the entheogens article uses both povs, that originally entheogens were plants with long histories of religious use, but now often is used to include things such as LSD. Perhaps this is where we bring in the "entheogen" vs "used as entheogen" distinction, with only the former actually being categorized as such? the plants etc with long historical usage could go in the category, with mdma etc taken out and the "entheogen" in such articles can be changed to "can be used as entheogen". most of the mdma/2c-*/etc type stuff would be better classed in Category:Entactogens and Empathogens anyways, a category that is suffering from some of the same lack of direction as the "entheogens" category. --Heah 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from the top of the entheogens article:This entry covers entheogens in the strict sense of the word (i.e. hallucinogenic drugs used in a religious or shamanic context). For general information about these substances and their use outside religious contexts, see hallucinogenic drug and psychedelic. --Heah 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood you then ;). I'm glad to hear that we agree. I will edit the category as soon as I get the time to do so. Aenar 21:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the proposed changes. I may have missed something. I wasn't quite sure which Psylocybe mushroom species should be included in this category, so I kept the ones that were already there. Aenar 17:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

great, i've added a plant or two. i feel that perhaps tampanensis should be removed, as apparently only once was it found in the wild and all tampanensis today are clones of that one find; this leads me to beleive that it isn't best classed as an "entheogen". On the other hand, i'd like to say that all the psilocybes have a place here by default. i'm going to leave it, but if anyone feels strongly about it, do what you think is best . . . --Heah 00:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

do entheogens have to be hallucinogens?

i'd like to add wine, used as an entheogen in the rites of Dionysus and the Bacchanalia, as well as eucharist, but figured i'd bring it up first. is this category only for things that are also hallucinogenic, or can any substances used to connect to god be included? I would tend towards the latter, but don't want to make that decision on my own. another reason a hallucinogens wikiproject is a good idea- somewhere to discuss all of this stuff . . . --Heah 00:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess alcohol and wine could be included in the category, though I don't have any definitive stance on the issue. I think I would be against including the eucharist, since it isn't really the psychoactive effects of wine that are central in the ritual. I don't know of any traditions where you are supposed to become drunk by taking the sacrament. For reference, there was a discussion on the maps (www.maps.org) mailing list on the subject: http://www.maps.org/pipermail/maps_forum/2004-June/date.html Subject: "Alcohol as entheogen"

Why not mescaline?

It seems to me that given the above discussion, mescaline definitely falls into the "entheogen" category. It has a long history of religious/shamanic use and it's definitely hallucinogenic (something that's been mentioned as a requirement elsewhere, I think on the entheogen page). I don't really care that much either way, but it seemed awfully strange to remove this one and keep, say, marijuana.

If the removal is intended to differentiate between mescaline itself and peyote, that's marginally understandable, but I think the distinction is probably too subtle to worry about.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi chris. The distinction being drawn is, as you say, between mescaline and peyote. Mescaline itself does not have a long history of religious/shamanic use; peyote, on the other hand, does. One of the purposes of this category is to expand the wikipedia categorization of hallucinogens beyond a simple scientific analysis of chemical class. Peyote contains more than just mescaline, to start with; in addition, the qualitative differences between the ingestion and use of peyote and the use of mescaline are great. For instance, peyote is often harvested, prepared, and administered according to strict religious ritual; mescaline can have that sort of associated ritual, but it is very uncommon and does not have the centuries and centuries of history that is associated with Peyote. Mescaline is bought from your local drug dealer and comes gel-capped, Peyote does not. Peyote is harder than mescaline- ie, harder to take, more nausea, etc, resulting in very different qualitative experiences.

The point of the entheogens category is not to categorize all hallucinogens/chemicals that can be used as entheogens. Ecstasy, acid, and ketamine all can be used as entheogens. Instead, the point is to create a category for substances with a tradition of entheogenic usage. Those who use peyote as an entheogen do not use mescaline, although they could; they do not talk about the pharmacological effects of mescaline, but rather the "spirit" of peyote. Many consider gel-capped mescaline to be almost sacraligious.

just to be clear, i am not trying to claim that peyote is "better" than mescaline, or that there is (necessarily) a difference between the effects of peyote and a concoction of pure extracts. There may be a difference, and there may not be. what is at stake here is not the reality of the scientific conception of mescaline as opposed to the reality of the spirit of peyote, or something similar; i don't beleive that such issues will ever be cleared up. Rather, Peyote has a long history of ritualized, entheogenic usage, as well as the idea of reality expressed in and through these ritual uses, while the chemical mescaline has none of these associated with it. The question is not about the truth of reality or the scientific difference between mescaline and peyote, or whether mescaline could be used as an entheogen. rather, it is a question of the great difference in history, culture, and ritual between the two.

Cannabis does have a history of entheogenic usage; you'll notice, however, that THC is not categorized as an entheogen. Tobacco is here but nicotine is not, psilocybes are here but psylocibin is not, ayahuasca is here but DMT and Harmala are not. For the purposes of this category, something is not considered an entheogen by virtue of its being a hallucinogen or its potential uses as an entheogen.

(about to be cross posted to Clawson's user page.) thanks. --Heah 02:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. That makes more sense. Sorry for the trouble. :)

Whoever created the entheogens category page obviously doesn't know anything about entheogens

Whoever created the entheogens category page obviously doesn't know anything about entheogens. It's funny really. (193.144.34.54 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC))

Hey, just consuming the flesh is "Better", on the grounds that your getting the whole shotgun blast so to speak. Your getting the full spectrum of alkaloids. One things for certain the world DESERVES mescaline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.152.46 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)