Wade T.Smith wrote:
>
>>The second answer is that of course it makes no sense to study
shamanism
>>academically because it is first and foremost an experiental practice.
>
>My only comment would be to highlight this passage.
>
>Interesting how 'scientifically' suddenly became 'academically'.
Although what he was responding to used the former word,
I think Salt was quite clear that he was interested in the
latter context. And he was sufficiently explicit about what
he meant by it that no confusion could result. Could it?
>And also
>interesting in how it continues the mostly invalid idea that feelings
are
>somehow totally intangible to observation and instrumentation.
Like where he says:
>>In summary I see no barrier to examining shamanic or other altered
states
>>of consciousness in controlled situations and it seems to me it is a
>>worthwhile avenue to explore. Because people use a technique for
spiritual
>>or other personal development does not invalidate them as objects of
>>scientific study any more than describing something completely in
>>scientific terms rules it out as a subject of personal subjective
>>significance (e.g. a sunset).
??
>Wasn't there some correlation found between shamans and epileptics?
>Ultimately, the fugue state today could be the brain seizure
tomorrow....
Looks like a smear attempt to me.
Robin