Scientific or Shamanic perspectives.

[Manystones]

Min,

Thankyou for your feedback. I'd like to know whether you think this action actually misrepresented the questions being asked, and if so in what way?

Essentially there were two questions being asked:

1. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

+

2. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

=

3. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo and Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?


I was isolating number 1 to deal with first.

[john]

Min,

Thankyou for your feedback. I'd like to know whether you think this action actually misrepresented the questions being asked, and if so in what way?

Essentially there were two questions being asked:

1. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

+

2. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

=

3. All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo and Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?


I was isolating number 1 to deal with first.

Manystones, and All -

First, I'll state that this piece is neither a personal attack directed at you, Manystones, nor the Forum at Large. However, I am disturbed about the pattern of one-on-one communication meltdowns which I have experienced since becoming a member of this forum.

I believe there are two root causes for this phenomenon:

1.) The intentional use of Prevarication

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617 ... icate.html

2.) The purposeful use of the classic Jesuit argumentative methodology

http://cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/_e&ae/feyerab.html


Both of these depend on the assumption that the person you are speaking with is an opponent who must, ultimately, be eliminated.

A priori, this means that this forum is not about the free exchange of ideas but a series of cognitive gladiatorial contests which end with only one combatant standing. By the way, this is absolutely typical of the methodology of The Club, which we so often denigrate.

This is anathema to me, and I would hope anathema to the moderators of this forum.

I respect all of the members here, and expect the same.

A final note concerning the cognitive reality of Shamanism, from perhaps 500k years ago up to and including the present: Hematite, anyone?


Hoka Hey


john

[Minimalist]

Rich,

Sorry I did not see your question before this.

So, to answer. Yes. I had to go back and re-read it and then go back and look at the original post of Ishtar and to be honest I'd rather not have to be bothered doing that.

As to Part Two of your question, I'm not going to attempt to psycho-analyze anyone. I assume that we are all adults here and while passions may get heated I certainly hope that they cannot get that heated.

Frankly, it seems like more trouble to edit a quote than to simply quote the whole thing which prevents anyone from suggesting that a comment was edited "for effect." The old "ounce of prevention" axiom if you like?

Personally, I don't find the whole topic all that interesting although I would concede that it certainly has a place in human history.

[john]

All -

For discussion. This in relationship to early migration patterns which seem to center in this geographical area............


http://www.jcrows.com/reynoldsshaman.html


hoka hey


john