You've laid the groundwork for future experimentation and increased the
liklihood that something (even if it must be directly experienced) will
happen at a greater variable than would be likely by chance alone.
Brett
At 02:51 PM 8/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Robin Faichney wrote:
>
>> Note the implication that shamanism
>> is "a technique for spiritual or other personal
>> development".
>
>interesting. Maybe I'll take it up!
>
>> The second answer is that of course it makes no sense to study shamanism
>> academically because it is first and foremost an experiental practice.
>> No
>> one can tell you what it feels like to go into a shamanically induced
>> trance or to go on a shamanic journey. You can describe the physical
>> effects of a roller coaster ride in terms of increased heart-rate,
>> g-forces
>> applied etc. but I'll never know what it's like until I take the ride.
>
>Exactly. While we may attempt to describe subjective experiences in the
>*inter*subjective thing we call language, or even in the "objective"[1]
>terms of science, such an attempt is bound to be just that: an attempt.
>
>It's like trying to talk about Zen. It can be done, but what have you
>gained?
>
>"Religion is Zen"... that is, religion is about deeply subjective
>experiences.
>
>ERiC
>
>[1] Science claims objectivity, but it's really no more than carefully
>applied inter-subjectivity. That is, a formallized process for
>establishing "truth" based on the experiences of multiple persons and
>instruments. Right?
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.
KEN KESEY