Re: virus: Re: shaman

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:16:24 -0500

I want to try to explain again. First, people get split between mind and
matter. Then, they take sides. Then they reach an agreement--like husband
and wife--that one will be willful and the other will be emotional...the
more angry the one becomes, the more shaming the other becomes till the one
thinks for both of them and the other feels for both of them. Besides
forming a system that is controlling and repressive (though not obvious to
its "balanced" participants), there is something within each half that
"disappears"--the husband loses his ability to feel anything and the wife
loses her ability to think about the consequences of his actions.

So, they stop thinking about consequences and feelings and pawn those things
off on the church and state (like you said, "Assuming one wants to
bother....[with religion and politics]"; and they don't in a way, these
things are repressive and controlling so they are invisible. What we have
is that the *illusion* of a balanced mind and emotional state is all that
remains. The reality of the individual, of a truly balanced mind and body,
of a government and of a religious institution--physical realities--these
are seen as illusion.

So, whatever functions are performed by the church and state (and I say they
set standards) are seen as originating "somewhere" (that we can't talk
about). Instead, we "personally" (not really) adopt standards--the product
of church and state--without seeing the process which created them. This is
why I say that standards "magically" appear (though of course they don't).
This is why I say that the process (of developing standards) is
misinterpreted as a "product" (meaning something that is produced somewhere
but which we consume without ever thinking about what went into producing it).

Now, I say that the professional non-professional (church professionals,
government professionals...) give people the perception of control by
letting them think that standards are objects--We make... terms like
movement, growth, rest, balance, perspective, stability, change, tension,
release, and resistance [objective]; that is, we "do" them, perform them,
act them out, make them a part of our professional image (remember, the
reality is illusion and the illusion reality). The institution is burned in
effigy (this part we agreed on, right?), and we think we are unique.

Ok, so there is still the shaman. S/HE is the individual that we are
pretending to be, the one who has his own government and religion. All we
can do is deny this individual because he is, functionally, everything we
cannot be (this time I am glossing over whether a shaman has a true grasp of
anything...*functionally*, the shaman has individuality, government and
religion). Then I said we pay him (like the church and state) to disappear
so that we can have the control; and he thinks this is fine since all he
wants is what we don't want, anyway--what he calls real and we call illusion.

Wade, I like your post. I think you must have found something which you
could claim as your own even though it appeared magically, "I won't begin to
let you or anyone else, especially myself, begin to believe I understood
anything that preceded the next statement, but somehow you got to it and it
seems cogent-" (Wade T. Smith). I know where it came from though--"This
is the core of the professionalistic model without the shaman and this is
where modern society finds itself today."--I invented it on the
spot...created my own government and church, individually (but don't worry,
I'll step out and let you have the illusion of control...I always do: Why?:
Because I don't want "control", I can't do what I do if I am in control or
am controlled, which is "create").

And that is how you will know the shaman from the sham. The sham claims
control and the shaman cannot. "It was not I but the one who sent me...Who
do you say I am?"


At 12:12 AM 8/17/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I won't begin to let you or anyone else, especially myself, begin to
>believe I understood anything that preceded the next statement, but
>somehow you got to it and it seems cogent-

>>This is the core of the professionalistic model without the
>>shaman and this is where modern society finds itself today.

>So, yes, a good deal of this world lives within this model, I think.

>>So, how can the role of religion and politics be translated by the

>Assuming one wants to bother....

>>The Answer: Those functions provided by religion and
>>politics are sub-headed under the new magical term, "standards"--the process
>>becomes the product.

>I would of course state that standards have naught to do with the
>'magical' and I would further classify the above as both nonsensical and
>non-sequitur. But don't get bunged down by my misapprehension here.

>>We make objective terms like movement, growth, rest,
>>balance, perspective, stability, change, tension, release, and resistance.

>We make them what?... do what?

>>Satisfaction and satiation become the by-words and is judged by quantity and
>>quality (ie. we mechanize). THEN we ask how does the shaman
>>satisfy...looking at his quantity and quality.

>Again, you've quite lost me here, but lo and behold-

>>It seems that the only position that the shaman can then fill is one of
>>scapegoat. He becomes an anachronism, is seen as controlling and
>>repressing: He claims the qualities of respect, humility, responsibility,
>>and obligation but doesn't display the form of power, pride, sympathy and
>>empathy. But every time we go to destroy him something stops us.

>People would rather enjoy the mistakes of their fathers then find new
>pitfalls to enbruise themselves. We have no magic flute to lead them
>onward. And they have learned to pay with their fears, not their
>thoughts. They are even happy.

>Zippy- 'Why do you always look so skeptical, doggie?'
>Doggie- 'Because I've seen too much, Zippy.'
>Zippy- 'Then why do you keep _looking_, doggie?'
>Doggie- 'Too much is never enough.'

>So in this myriad tints of grey world, a few of us facet models with
>rational tools, attempting to engage some form with the chaos. The more
>the merrier. He who understands chaos is god. He is alone. Light, the
>first form, will destroy him.

Wade T. Smith

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Often the test of courage is not to die but to live.

Conte Vittorio Alfieri