sometimes it feels like there are like 100 people on earth that know the material reality of why the salem witch trials happened
so many myths. was not based on the testimony of children. many people confessed themselves to being witches. i have their letters in books upstairs
people write entire books about the salem witch trials without explaining why someone would point blank tell people they were a witch traveling to black sabbaths and hanging with demons
men confessed to being werewolves. they literally were like “i am actually a werewolf”.
reflection: many cultures have some form of what we call shamanism wherein people use psychoactive plants to interact with spirits and do what they call magic, and such things
question: what was this in western culture?
the answer when i return from reading a book to a tiny man
alright sorry to keep the crew waiting. it was requested that i read this text. fitting, as it also takes place in new england.
anyway […]
to keep it brief, consider that the conventional narrative of the salem witch trials fits very well into modern narratives: religion bad, people in the past are stupid, large groups of people are often prone to total hysteria - its very easy to accept and fits in perfectly.
to answer the above question, a missing piece of most people’s understanding of western cultural archetypes, in my opinion, is that western culture has an indigenous form of shamanism. its embodied in the witch. the witch is basically the shaman of europe, if you think about it.
if “witch” were a gender neutral term, this would be more obvious. but its not, so, in my opinion, this is rarely fully realized. theres a lot we could go into there but lets keep it moving
many parts of that archetype such as potions, charms, etc., have a real historical aspect
that real historical aspect, and this whole tale, dovetails with what psychoactive substances were available to people in europe, and later, colonial america.
last piece of hard info is between two classes of drugs: psychedelics and deliriants / dissociatives.
not looking up which D term im thinking of, sorry. those days are behind me.
the relevant distinction here is that on psychedelics you almost always know youre on drugs.
on deliriants, you do not. thats a big difference for ethnographic study purposes. example:
someone takes mushrooms. they see their blanket patterns moving. 99% of the time, they are aware that this is a hallucination.
on a deliriant, if you are in your closet hallucinating that you are at 7/11, you actually think you are at 7/11.
okay. so, whats the point.
the point is that deliriants, what i would call solanaceous plants like… datura, henbane, belladonna… etc., were available to there people (western culture) (wypipo) (and beyond but, we’re not talking about that)
so, thats the missing piece. people were using those plants
but
it goes beyond that, because apparently (how you explain that apparently is going to depend on your metaphysics), the experience isnt random. it has certain patterns and archetypes, such as: flying, shadow people, going to dark “events”, basically all the “witch stuff”.
so, people were making ointments out of these plants and using them and hallucinating that they were doing witch stuff (flying around, meeting demons, etc). however, the crucial distinction is that they were not aware that this was a drug experience. they didnt know that.
from their point of view, they’d put the ointment on in a barn, then fly out of the barn, and go on a journey.
in “real life” they would just pass out on the floor of the barn.
thats why they told people they were witches doing that stuff. they actually thought that they were.
this is documented in a book called ‘hallucinogens and shamanism’ by michael harner, which is mostly about ayahuasca, but has one chapter on… this (in the middle).
lets look at some primary sources
this was written in the late 1600s. here its described as an oil, not an ointment:
lady alice kyteler in 1324 also describes an ointment. we’ll get to some more solid examples, but you can see its at least very old
in case you cant understand, this is saying she sat on a staff - like you see witches sitting on a broom. they sat on objects like that:
sitting on a staff (or broom, or rod) with your feet off the ground confers a feeling of levity and weightlessness, which facilitates the (drug) experience (ie you feel like youre flying or riding something).
theres also another non PG-13 reason. ointment, absorbed quickly… k.
alright lets just cut to the chase. theres a lot of examples of the staff or them sitting in baskets or things like that.
this guy in the 1690s just lays it out.
lets note that this is a firsthand account that does not fit any conventional understanding of this phenomenon:
this woman tells the priest she is a witch and travels at night. she isnt tortured or falsely accused and sets out to prove it to the priest, who watches her attempt to do it:
if you only read one read this one.
in 1545, the physician to pope julius the third describes the ointment and its effects after a couple was arrested for witchcraft
(very notable ending)
okay this is already kind of long so i will extremely briefly explicate the material reality of lycanthropy, which is the proper term for werewolfism.
for a variety of reasons, you can speculate, the effects can be different for men and women and tend to cluster on either end.
although men had the “witch experience” (flying, black sabbath), more often men had the experience of transforming into animals like wolves
aside from humor thats part of why i selected a few with sex above. kind of makes sense men would have a more violent type of hallucination
1634
what is not explicated here is “the girdle”. as women would do things to heighten the sensation of flying, men would wear animal pelts in places where their limbs touched their torso (or places like that) so theyd feel the fur while moving and facilitate the hallucination:
as promised above here is an example (1602) of a man imprisoned who professes to actually have the ability to become a wolf but says he cant do it without the ointment:
last note, in 1521 a guy in france confessed to the church (like in a court) that he actually killed and ate people while he was a wolf (oops)
as you never know who is reading what you write online, i will say two things. a) obviously i would say it is very logical to assume that there is some metaphysical or spiritual aspect at play here, whether they are “pure hallucinations”, or not, or some middle ground.
b) i suppose its relevant, i have personally seen and handled ointments that are like these or that are recreations of these.
the plants described here are actually super dangerous - like, if you cut yourself while on them, you wont know you cut yourself. its at “that level” so, there is no safe way to use them in any way. they kill people. just thought id mention that.
real religion history hours
thanks for reading my thread
threads like this often leave my usual orbit (thanks), so if we have not met, i often deal with atypical american / christian religion topics. here is: my dog and calvinism, or another new england file (thread below)
im also releasing a book late november / early december
im going to tether one more new england esoterica thread here. this ones way shorter:
being God in massachusetts:
➡️
@DanielSWise someone robs a bank. if you explain why they did that, its interpreted as you defending them. people have careers - and people that dedicate their lives to studying things like witchcraft or psychedelics academically are already predisposed to being sympathetic to those things.
@DanielSWise theres nothing wrong with that in and of itself, i guess, but flip it onto yourself. discard all the accounts i posted as pure fabrications. why the consistent specific details combined with specific plants that actually induce these types of hallucinations?
@DanielSWise because people actually were using the plants in that way. thats the only explanation.
so then youd have to say that the existence of all that played no role in the historical situation. also implausible. thats all im asserting: theres a material reality people are ignorant of.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
after several years of dovetailing my brain with the internet (i love it thanks), ive noticed an artistic principle that, i suspect, was much more difficult to pick up on before electric air instant free mass communication
[...]
it is almost a law to me at this point. it at least holds up 90% of the time. things that i think will do very well - that i hold up to myself and say "wow, this is really it", just do okay.
things i contemplated trashing do well. very well. things i almost discarded entirely.
there are some exceptions. sometimes you're anticipating a good shot, and you take it, and you were correct.
but theres way more cases where i contemplated not sending a tweet, or wondered if something was even good enough to post, and people still circulate it years later.
crazy aspect of modern internet worldview is that each person’s “lived experience” is a hermetically sealed reality that can never be fully understood by someone else, while also expecting no one to ever express shock or surprise at something theyre unfamiliar with.
all the comments say “dude its DC its fine”. if thats true, how would she know that? a girl saying “i know what this city is like because i saw it on TV once” would also be viewed negatively.
its a double bind. cant win.
its like that bodega guy. if he made a post saying “i know what NY is like, ive never been there though” - thats bad. but to go and then be surprised at how it is - thats also bad. so you have to say nothing as an individual, and just participate in the game as a group member.
1850s: a guy named perkins is into chemistry. didnt know what he’d do with it. dad wanted him to be an architect.
one day he accidentally discovered a chemical dye. now you could just make stuff this color. changed the world’s aesthetics overnight. thats how it happens sometimes
you’ve heard about the phonecians, purple being used only for royalty all over the world - that was over now. he went into business making this dye. women’s dresses, ties, couches, whatever you wanted, could just be this color now
visually, a totally new world. a new planet.
we live in a world where “color” is divorced from “pigments”. thats pretty novel and strange. there was a time, a long time presumably, when your mark-making as a human would have been limited to colors like this: charcoal, ochres, that was it. this was humanity’s palette:
an odd cultural memory considering the direction popular movies eventually took is the release of the first sin city movie
at the time, it was a huge novelty that they made a movie about a comic book. everyone thought it was crazy. it was even made to look like a comic:
[...]
super high contrast, it even has spot coloring. maybe this looks kind of tacky now. im not a film person so i have no idea. but at the time, this was crazy. you felt really cool watching this movie. it felt like there was nothing else like it, a totally niche unique pocket.
at the time, i think it would have been hard to for someone to believe that soon, comic book movies as a concept would almost take over the culture - become a whole paradigm.
but sometimes that happens. a small folder opens and goes from niche outlier to almost the default.
there's a branch of semiotics (study of signs, symbolism, and more broadly: non-verbal communication) that deals exclusively with how people act in space, distances between people, and interpersonal spatial relationships. it's called proxemics.
my favorite tangible example of proxemics is the well known images of finnish bus stations, where people wait with a distance between each other that would read as odd in other countries:
a lot of comedy on screens revolves around proxemics - it's non verbal, so if someone doesn't understand it, it creates a miscommunication that is then humorous to analyze. for example, someone being too close when they talk, or navigating a new proxemic language, like an office
how the car i rented today illustrates why the world is no longer cool, liquid modernity, ergonomic shunyata (being devoid of an instrinsic nature)
[…]
i bought my car for 2,000 in a field. many people equipment or tools that were more expensive than my car.
i love my car. being an artist, i am naturally not in many vehicles that cost more than this.
until today, when i rented a minivan. a new minivan.
the minivan is fully encased in digital-ness: it is designed to be as modern as possible.
this is a great illustration of how modern design and technology is dehumanizing. we often use this word, but here we can see what it really means clearly: it strips out the human element.