I'm reading a book called "Why Religion Matters" by Huston Smith, and I can see more of a shamanically influcenced hermeticism, rather than a hermetically stylized shamanism.

A disclaimer: I find Smith's concept intersesting, but by no means am I sure it's the truth. It's an interesting model.

Smith puts it like this: There are 4 levels of religous awareness in the world: Atheistic, Polytheistic, Monotheistic, Mystic. At each level, you can see the levels below, but not the levels above. It's like a one way mirror.

For instance: The athiest looks up, and sees the world reflected back at him: he can go no higher.

The polytheist sees the world, and his multitude of gods acting within the world, and can appeal to those gods to affect it, but he can't see the monotheistic overarching god.

The monotheist can see the world, and the multiude of 'other beings' (angels, demons, asura, spirits, what have you), but recognizes only one God and holds him high above all.

The mystic sees all of this, and also sees that God is in all things, filling them, affecting them. All things are affected by all other things, to the mystic, and removing any one thing would diminish the whole.

Now, if we consider hermeticism "mystic" and shamanism "polytheistic", then the hermetic practitioner can use elements of shamanism in his practice, while realizing that the method used to access the ineffable doesn't matter. He could just as easily use greek, or judaic elements, or even motorcycle maintenance, to attain his desired effect.

Now, if a shaman were to use rituals that were 'hermetic', he would get a polytheisitc reaction (his spirits would answer, what have you) and probably not a mystic one.

A final note: I don't think Smith or I put value judgements on any of these 'types' of spirituality. They're just different world views, and each is more inclusive than the last. Each is effective, as far as it goes, and can be internally self consistent. I recommend the book, it's definitely thought provoking.