Re: virus: Re: shaman

Tim Rhodes (
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)

Wade T.Smith, who is nothing like a poodle, wrote:

> All I am saying is that for an interested bystander to get some facts
> about shamanism, he would need to actually immerse himself in the culture
> and apprentice himself to the shaman. Whereas, if one wanted to learn
> angioplasty, although a period of schooling may perhaps be beneficial,
> the techniques and methods are published in a cadre of professional and
> other journals.
> It is this 'you have to "become" one' aspect of shamanism that I observe
> as deception, and that I hold up as evidence. It is in this way that it
> is different from science.

Yes, it is different from science. Science is the cultural form that
*invented* published professional journals, remember. To disregard a
different cultural form because it doesn't use *our* methodology is like
disregarding Biology because it refuses to use the terminology of Physics.
Or ignoring and defaming everything published in French because you can't
speak it. (And if they were "real" insights they'd be in *English*,

Maybe it's time that we took the time to do some translation instead of
just name calling. (Sneaky Frogs! Using that mysterious "French"
language of theirs to obscure the truth!)

Biases quickly become prejudices if left unexamined, Wade.

-Prof. Tim