Re: virus: Re: shaman

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:03:53 -0500

>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


This is the part I really liked when I read your post again. I say that
this defines the shaman, that he is "attempting to engage some form with the
chaos...[he] who understands chaos [who] is god". Saying that only "a few
of us facet models" misses the point--"[t]he more the merrier". The "He"
who "is alone" is now each of us: As we "[l]ight the first form,"
we--now--destroy each the other. What has happened to the shaman? We have
each become him in this "pomo" world--creating our own "models" with our own

What I wanted to know is this: Were you claiming to be the professional in
the above statement, "the more the merrier" one? Or, were you siding with
the shaman, the "He is alone" one? If the former, then you have bought in
to the group perspective; saying in effect, "we" do this but "He" does
not--scapegoating the individual and making the assumption that the group
holds your views. While at the same time, you are scapegoating yourself by
setting the form of "the group can decide" and they will say--you used your
own reasoning, You are "the one" (whose model is [not] really the group
model), *we*--on the other hand--side with the group ("we are not rational").

Are you the shaman?


At 02:16 AM 8/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
>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