Re: virus: Re: shaman

Brett Lane Robertson (
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:03:37 -0500

"When did a con man let any of his marks in on the game? The shaman can
claim 'supernatural' powers and beg off in that way. He is keeping
'secrets', that is all I meant."


I have been working on my social theory...thinking about calling it
"Professionalistic Theory; Professionalism" or something like that. I have
pretty much decided that there are 2 non-professionals, the shaman and the
sham. Any chance that you will concede that a "professor" is shamanic and
"the professional" a sham? Or perhaps that professing religious adherents
are shamanic...Professed Priests shams? Perhaps not!

Perhaps that IS the difference between the shaman and the others mentioned.
The others make a public announcement of their beliefs (they profess). The
shaman has not bought-in to any of these beliefs (or has not sold out to
them). Though, the "sham" seems to buy into all of these beliefs and or
sell out to any of them.

Not knowing your religious upbringing: What do you think of the statements
(loosely translated) "we should not be like the priests in their priestly
garbs shouting their prayers aloud and getting payed for it" or that we
"should go into our closets and pray"? I have found in my limited
experience that the ego gets involved quickly when we begin to judge ourself
by professional ethics instead of morals. I am a continual student of life
and have not "grown-up" enough to decide what I want to be when I get older.
I don't profess to know anything nor do I give others labels to which they
can pin me down (for that is the start of a manipulative game whereby one
gets bought and sold).

Of the shaman and the sham, I think that the sham is paid in this world and
the shaman's treasures are of a different one. Thanks again for being a
solid wall off of which I could bounce my own ideas.


At 06:42 PM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Do you have any *evidence* (ain't science grand!?!) to support *your myth*
>>that Shaman don't relate to their patents/clients/employers/charges?

>Well, 'relate' is certainly not what I meant. They 'relate' very well.
>What I meant was, and there is evidence for this, that the shaman does
>not and will not allow the client in on his methods.

>That's all I meant.


>When did a con man let any of his marks in on the game? The shaman can
>claim 'supernatural' powers and beg off in that way. He is keeping
>'secrets', that is all I meant.

>No jargon-spouting professional is _unwilling_ to let you in on things,
>given the time, and he would certainly offer to show you where to find
>the information.

>Even Brodie shows us the Amazonian plateau where the levels are hidden....

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Every society honours its live conformists and its dead

Mignon Mclaughlin