Anyway... Since I seem to be in agreement with most if not all of his
points, I can only assume I am being misunderstood, or being perhaps too
easily apportioned into a sorting system myself by those who claim not to
be using these sorts of things....
>Hmm. It seems to me as if you are trying to create a sorting system. In
>your mind there is a DISTINCT difference between a "scientist" and
>"artist" and a "shaman". Several people have tried to point
>out the flaws and/or inconsistencies in such a categorization but, despite
>paying lip service to the vagarities of language and life, you are sticking
>(and why shouldn't you?) to this idea that there exist a sub-set of people
>who practice "shamanism" fakery, confidence swindles, etc.
Actually, yes, I perceive a distinct difference between those I perceive as
'scientists' and 'artists' and 'shaman' as to the way they approach and
disturb nature. However- I really judge these things not, although I do
hold certain truths more self-evident....
And- I really do hold a system wherein these approaches are combined to be
an appreciable and 'better' approach.
I am also not quite sure whether or not memetics gives a shit about this,
which is, I guess, where I was trying to go- away from this sorting, if
that is what it is, and toward a more germinal, brain-level analysis,
since, to me, memetics should not be too bothered by an evolved cultural
form- that should be left to anthropology or even advertising....
======================================================================
Wade T. Smith | "Ideal conversation must be an exchange
wade_smith@harvard.edu | of thought, and not, as many of those
morbius@channel1.com | who worry most about their shortcomings
morbius@cyberwarped.com | believe, an eloquent exhibition of
| wit or oratory." - Emily Post
************** http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ ****************