virus: Re: shaman
Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:13:16 +0000

Wade wrote:

I reiterate- the shaman is only a shaman within his own culture. Taken
outside, he is a sham. Science, and the scientist, do not have a culture
(in the same sense- I don't want a semantic squabble about 'culture')
which they can step outside of and perish.

Yes. You are validating the shaman. Freud was a shaman because according
to your analysis it was the fallacy of culture-- Victorian, European---
that produced all of his incorrect statements, not a fallacy of his

Personally, I can't see the difference between the two-- science and
culture. But if that model helps this move forward, I'll accept it.

When you say a shaman is a shaman in his own culture you are actually
making tim's arguement. (the one I remember from the beginning of the
thread, anyway)

A shaman is a Shaman in his own culture in the same way that an american
buck is worth $1.00 in America ( or worth a beer or a Big Mac) Outside
that culture it's worth say, 1.5 ringets or a nice big bowl of Nasi
Goreng with two fried eggs on top instead of one.

The american buck isn't worthless outside of america because the
outsiders have found *some* way to put it to use.

It comes down to a sense of value....

  Ken Pantheists        
  Lurch In Vault Web Services