Walsh Part IV:
When I read Devilization then my eyes skimmed the page and focused on “Christian,” I giggled.
Only because I had the feeling they condemned shamans. It’s silly and sad they got away with it as well. To assume they are demons? Come on.
Page 90, paragraph two struck me. It just points out how we think what they do is strange because it doesn’t fall into our societies norm. But the fact that we remain skeptical of their practices makes us strange to them. It makes sense and I definitely agree. It’s important to understand other cultures in their own context. Americans are ethnocentric. It’s pretty sad.
The talk of shamans in the psychological world makes me laugh because I have a minor in Psychology so I have an understanding of that type of perspective. It wasn’t really intentional, but anyway, I get how they think shamans are crazy and hysterical, schizophrenic and all the psychological jargon that goes along with it. I don’t agree with it either. I think it’s a bit ridiculous for us to judge another culture by our standards and what we think is “mentally healthy.” And how can they be tested psychologically when what they do is what they do. Not what we do. What my psychology teachers had pointed out to me in class was DSM-IV is biased towards men. There are plenty of legit criticisms on it. So technically, we aren’t even accurately diagnosing people right in the first place.
Hughes Chapter six:
Gee, I like this book because it’s filled with pictures to occupy my short attention span. Way to be entertaining. Thanks book. The creative personality profile on Pablo Picasso was neat to read. I liked the quote about him, “The painter paints as if in urgent need to discharge himself of his sensations and visions.”Sensations and visions, meaning his paintings could have been pictures he saw in his head. Hm.
The picture of Renoir made me sad. His knuckles were bulbous looking and his fingers were bent and crippled. Looking at his hands hurt my hands. But, it made me sad that happened to his hands because he loved painting so much. That is like a musician losing his or her hearing. Life had gone on for Renoir; he strapped his paintbrushes to his hands so he could still paint. Awww.
“The concentrated effort of writing makes one completely forget for the time being that one has a body.” Sometimes I do feel all brain all the time. This semester I’ve gone into writing overdrive. There’s Kareithi boot camp, The Capital Times, this blog, my personal blog that is neglected, critiques for my photography class yadda yadda yadda. Having spent so much time in my head, I liked this bit about British Poet Stephen Spender on page 86.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
walsh and hughes
Walsh and Hughes
If you would ask me to diagnose a shaman, it would be simple. I’d tell you to walk out on the street, if you see a guy shaking, exclaiming he had visions, and talking to himself, he just may be a shaman. To me, a shaman is just another term describing a drug addict with visions. I honestly feel shamanism has no real significance in the world when it is aided for a different state of mind by drugs. Shamanists are not curing cancer with their visions, enhancing technology, cracking mathematical codes, or anything. They are seeing stuff like flying alligators, snakes, weird abstractions, and admit to feel like they are floating amongst their own bodies.
They believe in their visions and that they can see things that a person normally wouldn’t see. I don’t see how a shaman can be given a title, if people find other ways of finding altered states. Shamanism could possibly be useful, if not altered by drug usage. To me the real strength of a spiritual person is when a person can get himself or herself in a state of mind so strong, that nothing could alter their state of mind, whether they achieve that state by religion, or other acts. Just not by using the aid of “special roots.”
There was a picture of a monk known very famous for killing himself, during the riots of the Vietnam War. A photograph was published of him, when he lit himself on fire, soaked in gasoline, and he did not move, or yell at all. He just sat on the ground of the street in a fixed state. This is what I feel is the strength of an altered state is. Not the act of suicide at all, but how this monk was so fully deep in his religious beliefs, that he did not feel the physical pain. Supposedly, according to Walsh, the shaman people have been “demonized, pathologized, or sanctified with wondrous abandon.” I guess I can understand these people going through a lot, especially if these states of mind are not in the normal world, and through very extreme psychological states. But, how would you define that monk, would he be considered a shamanist? He did not use drugs, but was in a state of mind so powerful it did block out pain.
My big problem of not understanding shamanism is I don’t believe in drugs at all. Even when I am sick, I rarely take medication. I didn’t even take my pain pills after surgery when I got four of my wisdom teeth taking out. I preferred to just deal with the pain, instead of the side affects of using prescription drugs. That’s just the type of person I am, I believe in using natural methods to heal and better my state of mind. As you see on commercials daily, pills can help one thing but hurts other things. You always here about medications warning about heightening the risk of causing increase in blood clots, stroke, and heart attack.
The section further goes on to explain about how shamans through fits, almost like Epilepsy. Now this is blamed on lack of training, and is told to be “expressions of intense emotional agitation,” according to Walsh. I will have to remember that if my nephew throws a fit, it’s an expression of intense emotional agitation. I don’t believe this is really a good sign if a person is a shaman. And other characteristics include deceit, and trickery, which is said by Walsh only to be used on outsiders of shamanism, which I would be one of the people it probably be used on, as well as characterizes of spiritual emergency, initiation crisis, and development crisis.
As for Hughes, it was interesting to bring up the creativity topic again. I absolutely love art, so it’s definitely right up my alley. I enjoy drawing, charcoaling, painting, airbrushing, photography, and much more. It’s away that I can create myself to be totally happy, no matter what could be going on in life. I feel for me, it is the addiction for the adrenaline felt, after you created a work of art. Having someone shocked on how well I could charcoal something never gets old. I love taking an object, for example, and creating something that shows other people how I see it. That’s just how I’m sure Picasso, and Monet felt, even though their talent to show others is still far beyond my capabilities. Some people I feel are still very talented, just in other categories of art. I’ve seen great art by others in athleticism, mathematics, and instrumental playing. Art to me is simply the definition of being great at something, and being able to show others that greatness. It is not limited to paintings and sculptures, but far beyond in other categories.
If you would ask me to diagnose a shaman, it would be simple. I’d tell you to walk out on the street, if you see a guy shaking, exclaiming he had visions, and talking to himself, he just may be a shaman. To me, a shaman is just another term describing a drug addict with visions. I honestly feel shamanism has no real significance in the world when it is aided for a different state of mind by drugs. Shamanists are not curing cancer with their visions, enhancing technology, cracking mathematical codes, or anything. They are seeing stuff like flying alligators, snakes, weird abstractions, and admit to feel like they are floating amongst their own bodies.
They believe in their visions and that they can see things that a person normally wouldn’t see. I don’t see how a shaman can be given a title, if people find other ways of finding altered states. Shamanism could possibly be useful, if not altered by drug usage. To me the real strength of a spiritual person is when a person can get himself or herself in a state of mind so strong, that nothing could alter their state of mind, whether they achieve that state by religion, or other acts. Just not by using the aid of “special roots.”
There was a picture of a monk known very famous for killing himself, during the riots of the Vietnam War. A photograph was published of him, when he lit himself on fire, soaked in gasoline, and he did not move, or yell at all. He just sat on the ground of the street in a fixed state. This is what I feel is the strength of an altered state is. Not the act of suicide at all, but how this monk was so fully deep in his religious beliefs, that he did not feel the physical pain. Supposedly, according to Walsh, the shaman people have been “demonized, pathologized, or sanctified with wondrous abandon.” I guess I can understand these people going through a lot, especially if these states of mind are not in the normal world, and through very extreme psychological states. But, how would you define that monk, would he be considered a shamanist? He did not use drugs, but was in a state of mind so powerful it did block out pain.
My big problem of not understanding shamanism is I don’t believe in drugs at all. Even when I am sick, I rarely take medication. I didn’t even take my pain pills after surgery when I got four of my wisdom teeth taking out. I preferred to just deal with the pain, instead of the side affects of using prescription drugs. That’s just the type of person I am, I believe in using natural methods to heal and better my state of mind. As you see on commercials daily, pills can help one thing but hurts other things. You always here about medications warning about heightening the risk of causing increase in blood clots, stroke, and heart attack.
The section further goes on to explain about how shamans through fits, almost like Epilepsy. Now this is blamed on lack of training, and is told to be “expressions of intense emotional agitation,” according to Walsh. I will have to remember that if my nephew throws a fit, it’s an expression of intense emotional agitation. I don’t believe this is really a good sign if a person is a shaman. And other characteristics include deceit, and trickery, which is said by Walsh only to be used on outsiders of shamanism, which I would be one of the people it probably be used on, as well as characterizes of spiritual emergency, initiation crisis, and development crisis.
As for Hughes, it was interesting to bring up the creativity topic again. I absolutely love art, so it’s definitely right up my alley. I enjoy drawing, charcoaling, painting, airbrushing, photography, and much more. It’s away that I can create myself to be totally happy, no matter what could be going on in life. I feel for me, it is the addiction for the adrenaline felt, after you created a work of art. Having someone shocked on how well I could charcoal something never gets old. I love taking an object, for example, and creating something that shows other people how I see it. That’s just how I’m sure Picasso, and Monet felt, even though their talent to show others is still far beyond my capabilities. Some people I feel are still very talented, just in other categories of art. I’ve seen great art by others in athleticism, mathematics, and instrumental playing. Art to me is simply the definition of being great at something, and being able to show others that greatness. It is not limited to paintings and sculptures, but far beyond in other categories.
Artistry's Altered State and Shaman Criticism
I remember, quite vividly, how my career as a writer began. It was just after I had begun college, and the process of fitting into my new environment had not gone very well. I had been met harshly by virtually everyone outside my dorm room (and even my first roommate), and so my sense of isolation grew greater. So, to relieve some stress, I began to write. Almost meditating into these fantastic worlds I was writing about, I found myself unaware of any other events surrounding myself. It became my life, and I found myself delving into this altered state of intense concentration on my work more and more often. I took that out of the Hughes piece this time around. I instantly resonated with the idea of focusing on work rather than any outside sources, and in turn, that produced various fictions, poetry, and screenplays that I feel could not have been attained in other circumstances. I lost all care for the rigors of college dorm life (and thankfully escaped that after my first year) and developed my own voice as a writer, which had been dormant all that time.
Walsh's writing seemed a bit of a response to the criticisms of Shamanism, as I have noticed in some previous chapters. He states that Shamans have been labeled as being mentally ill by various physicians and psychologists, but I understand now that that may be due to the lack of taking alternate perspectives to analyze subjects, that psychologists tend to take. Actually, on a related, outside note, I remember (when I was still a psychology major) learning about various schools and methods of the field (such as Skinner or Freud), and it just now occurred to me that by setting one's beliefs and methods in one school, claiming it to be right, are they not limiting their perspective on these problems they claim to diagnose? Therefore, Shamanism cannot be simply diagnosed as a mental derangement. In fact, one aspect of this reading that really resonated with me is the "placebo" effect that many doctors employ without problem, yet the shaman is met with intense criticism when he/she uses such methods. Perhaps a change of perspective for the common people is in order.
Walsh's writing seemed a bit of a response to the criticisms of Shamanism, as I have noticed in some previous chapters. He states that Shamans have been labeled as being mentally ill by various physicians and psychologists, but I understand now that that may be due to the lack of taking alternate perspectives to analyze subjects, that psychologists tend to take. Actually, on a related, outside note, I remember (when I was still a psychology major) learning about various schools and methods of the field (such as Skinner or Freud), and it just now occurred to me that by setting one's beliefs and methods in one school, claiming it to be right, are they not limiting their perspective on these problems they claim to diagnose? Therefore, Shamanism cannot be simply diagnosed as a mental derangement. In fact, one aspect of this reading that really resonated with me is the "placebo" effect that many doctors employ without problem, yet the shaman is met with intense criticism when he/she uses such methods. Perhaps a change of perspective for the common people is in order.
Hughes and Walsh
Hughes:
The mad scientist syndrome cracks me up. Sure, I've watched movies like this before but I never thought about how being so focused on your work could ruin other aspects of your life. Perhaps, I should re-evaluate my own schedule. Gaughin's quote, "Basically I have a psychological abnormality. I cannot stand sexual pleasure. It's peculiar" is rediculous. I don't want to give the wrong impression about me but how can someone not be able to stand sexual pleasure? And if this bothers him, then who knows what else he can't stand. It doesn't make sense to me to miss out on so many things in life because you're so consumed with math proofs. Also, I can understand that some people (in this case artists) love their work---and I hope to love my work some day---but not to the extent that I neglect personal relationships with wife, children, friends, family, etc.
Walsh:
Walsh's point that, "[Shamans] may no more display a single personality type or neatly fit a single diagnosis than do all Western doctors" makes a lot of sense to me (89). If you have an illness, doctors in the US would all probably diagnose you with the same thing and prescribe the same medicine/drug to cure you. This seems normal and to us because it's how things are done around here---but that doesn't mean the Shaman's way is wrong---we're just not use to it. Just as is pointed out that, "a Westerner who reported seeing and being persecuted by spirits might well be diagnosed as psychotics.....in shamanic cultures they are the norm" (90). My enthusiam for this course to a direct blow with the line Walsh uses from Kant in reference to "empty concepts" for someone talking about ASC's without any direct experience---empty concepts being, "concepts devoid of the richness, meaning, and significance that only direct experience can impart" (90). I think I'll get over it though---he does list yoga as being a happy and valuable ASC (still haven't started it). I thought this was a beautiful quote so I had to put it in here, "We cling to an old familiar understanding of ourselves and the world because it saves us from having to face the ever-changing novelty and uncertainty of life. We cling to the familiar, not knowing that mystery is a necessary prelude to the dawning of wisdom" (109). If you constantly think you already know everything or how everything works or even are just not interested in new possibilities---then you will continue to get the same results. We should all strive to be open to new thoughts, ideas, and possibilities---otherwise you're just limiting yourself. This reminds me of: you can't learn anything new when you're talking---meaning that if you're saying something then that means you already know/feel/believe that which you are saying, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say it. On the other hand, if you keep quiet and just listen then you might be surprised as to what you can learn.
The mad scientist syndrome cracks me up. Sure, I've watched movies like this before but I never thought about how being so focused on your work could ruin other aspects of your life. Perhaps, I should re-evaluate my own schedule. Gaughin's quote, "Basically I have a psychological abnormality. I cannot stand sexual pleasure. It's peculiar" is rediculous. I don't want to give the wrong impression about me but how can someone not be able to stand sexual pleasure? And if this bothers him, then who knows what else he can't stand. It doesn't make sense to me to miss out on so many things in life because you're so consumed with math proofs. Also, I can understand that some people (in this case artists) love their work---and I hope to love my work some day---but not to the extent that I neglect personal relationships with wife, children, friends, family, etc.
Walsh:
Walsh's point that, "[Shamans] may no more display a single personality type or neatly fit a single diagnosis than do all Western doctors" makes a lot of sense to me (89). If you have an illness, doctors in the US would all probably diagnose you with the same thing and prescribe the same medicine/drug to cure you. This seems normal and to us because it's how things are done around here---but that doesn't mean the Shaman's way is wrong---we're just not use to it. Just as is pointed out that, "a Westerner who reported seeing and being persecuted by spirits might well be diagnosed as psychotics.....in shamanic cultures they are the norm" (90). My enthusiam for this course to a direct blow with the line Walsh uses from Kant in reference to "empty concepts" for someone talking about ASC's without any direct experience---empty concepts being, "concepts devoid of the richness, meaning, and significance that only direct experience can impart" (90). I think I'll get over it though---he does list yoga as being a happy and valuable ASC (still haven't started it). I thought this was a beautiful quote so I had to put it in here, "We cling to an old familiar understanding of ourselves and the world because it saves us from having to face the ever-changing novelty and uncertainty of life. We cling to the familiar, not knowing that mystery is a necessary prelude to the dawning of wisdom" (109). If you constantly think you already know everything or how everything works or even are just not interested in new possibilities---then you will continue to get the same results. We should all strive to be open to new thoughts, ideas, and possibilities---otherwise you're just limiting yourself. This reminds me of: you can't learn anything new when you're talking---meaning that if you're saying something then that means you already know/feel/believe that which you are saying, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say it. On the other hand, if you keep quiet and just listen then you might be surprised as to what you can learn.
The primitive madman and creativity
Walsh introduces the concept of shamanic evolution; the viewpoint that this belief has gone from devilization to medicalization to idealization. These stages helped explain how this mystical notion has been perceived, and in Westernized thinking, I felt as if I fell into the middle category - seeing shamans as healers of their communities. I can't say that I completely understood HOW shamans healed their ailing members, especially after watching the film of the Peruvian tribe, but I was willing to accept that they somehow did. It could have simply been the power of suggestion, "I say you're healed so you are", or perhaps there was some sort of mysticism involved that westernized minds are blinded from. Just when I was about jump on board with the latter reason, Walsh informs his reader of the many tricks that Shamans play in efforts to "heal". Spitting up worms and feathers that were secretly placed in the shaman's mouth BEFORE a healing ritual? What a crock! Maybe it is because of such trickery that I am blinded from seeing anything beyond. I get that the purpose behind such trickery is to "bolster faith and inspire a placebo response" (117). But if shamans are so talented and spiritually gifted, do they need to really rely on trickery? Walsh - you had me until Part IV, I've returned to my skeptical ways.
I recall the seven intelligences that Hughes discusses from a former psych class. I don't remember the naturalist intelligence, but it makes sense. Initially I would have considered interpersonal and intrapersonal the two extreme opposites out of the seven, but possibly nature is another opposite of intrapersonal. Instead of an awareness within one's internal environment, this is an awareness of one's external environment.
I loved Hughes' description of the irrational, "the language of imagination" (84). Creative concepts that we come up with are irrational until put to external form. "But irrational messages lose content when translated into words, and often become unacceptable" (84). As explained, when these concepts are left to be encoded by the recipient, the irrational is maintained. I guess this to be in any medium that does not use words to convey the message. I know personally, I gather more rational concepts from words than I do from artwork, for example. Interpreting something written, I can usually figure out underlying concepts (whether these concepts are what the creator intended or not is a different story). Sometimes when I look at a painting, for example, I don't always get it, and it does seem to be an irrational creation.
I recall the seven intelligences that Hughes discusses from a former psych class. I don't remember the naturalist intelligence, but it makes sense. Initially I would have considered interpersonal and intrapersonal the two extreme opposites out of the seven, but possibly nature is another opposite of intrapersonal. Instead of an awareness within one's internal environment, this is an awareness of one's external environment.
I loved Hughes' description of the irrational, "the language of imagination" (84). Creative concepts that we come up with are irrational until put to external form. "But irrational messages lose content when translated into words, and often become unacceptable" (84). As explained, when these concepts are left to be encoded by the recipient, the irrational is maintained. I guess this to be in any medium that does not use words to convey the message. I know personally, I gather more rational concepts from words than I do from artwork, for example. Interpreting something written, I can usually figure out underlying concepts (whether these concepts are what the creator intended or not is a different story). Sometimes when I look at a painting, for example, I don't always get it, and it does seem to be an irrational creation.
Hughes 6, Walsh IV
Hughes
I remember all of the different personality types. I believe I took a test in my high school psychology class to figure out which one I was. At the point in time my results landed me in the intrapersonal intelligence. However, now I'm not really sure what I am. I suppose I dabble in a couple areas.
I found the part about endless love to be very interesting. "The meaning of life is defined less by personal relationships then by the work" (80). I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with this statement, however, I guess it is true. Typically a person's work or passion represents who they are the most. I definitely agree that creativity is often a therapy. For me, when I'm really upset and I write, then I instantly feel better. I think a lot of artists get so lost in his or her artwork that they forget about all of the problems they are dealing with. Soon after all problems are forgotten I don't doubt that falling into an altered state of consciousness is possible.
Walsh IV
I can definitely understand how shamans were first associated with devilization, then medicalization and finally idealization. Being honest that is how it has played out for me just in this class. I used to associate shamanism as being bad, then I saw the healing powers, and I'm still working on the idealization stage. I do find it fascinating and I definitely don't see it as a bad idea anymore. However, how shamans are viewed really is in the eye of the beholder. I love the quote at the beginning of chapter 12. "It is the mind that maketh good or ill, that maketh wretch or happy, rich or poor." I really believe that because I think it is all in the mind. This might sound strange, but I think I have my own connection to this quote. I haven't been sick for like 2 years, meaning no colds or anything. I used to think when the weather changed that I was going to get sick, also, if I was around someone sick, then I would get sick. However, somehow I changed my thinking. If someone tells me I'm going to get sick, then I say that I don't get sick. I'm not sure how it is working, but it has. I simply don't think that it will happen unless I think it will and as a result I haven't been sick since I started thinking in this manner. Back to the chapter I don't think it is surprising the shamans were thought of as epileptics and associated with hysteria. I think anyone who does not understand altered states of consciousness would apply such diagnoses.
In chapter 13, I simply think about my psychology classes that I had. I recall the Rorschach Test and it being unreliable, but I guess it is helpful when detecting patterns. In chapter 14 I think it is interesting how much science and spirituality are intermixing, when they are typically kept separate in school. I see the healing power of shamanism as spiritual, and I'm not sure how science could ever understand it. There is so much psychology in this chapter, but it seems like there should be a priest trying to understand a shaman. Lastly, I don't think shamanism is all trickery, but I'm sure there is probably a lot of fakes. Overall, I found this reading interesting.
I remember all of the different personality types. I believe I took a test in my high school psychology class to figure out which one I was. At the point in time my results landed me in the intrapersonal intelligence. However, now I'm not really sure what I am. I suppose I dabble in a couple areas.
I found the part about endless love to be very interesting. "The meaning of life is defined less by personal relationships then by the work" (80). I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with this statement, however, I guess it is true. Typically a person's work or passion represents who they are the most. I definitely agree that creativity is often a therapy. For me, when I'm really upset and I write, then I instantly feel better. I think a lot of artists get so lost in his or her artwork that they forget about all of the problems they are dealing with. Soon after all problems are forgotten I don't doubt that falling into an altered state of consciousness is possible.
Walsh IV
I can definitely understand how shamans were first associated with devilization, then medicalization and finally idealization. Being honest that is how it has played out for me just in this class. I used to associate shamanism as being bad, then I saw the healing powers, and I'm still working on the idealization stage. I do find it fascinating and I definitely don't see it as a bad idea anymore. However, how shamans are viewed really is in the eye of the beholder. I love the quote at the beginning of chapter 12. "It is the mind that maketh good or ill, that maketh wretch or happy, rich or poor." I really believe that because I think it is all in the mind. This might sound strange, but I think I have my own connection to this quote. I haven't been sick for like 2 years, meaning no colds or anything. I used to think when the weather changed that I was going to get sick, also, if I was around someone sick, then I would get sick. However, somehow I changed my thinking. If someone tells me I'm going to get sick, then I say that I don't get sick. I'm not sure how it is working, but it has. I simply don't think that it will happen unless I think it will and as a result I haven't been sick since I started thinking in this manner. Back to the chapter I don't think it is surprising the shamans were thought of as epileptics and associated with hysteria. I think anyone who does not understand altered states of consciousness would apply such diagnoses.
In chapter 13, I simply think about my psychology classes that I had. I recall the Rorschach Test and it being unreliable, but I guess it is helpful when detecting patterns. In chapter 14 I think it is interesting how much science and spirituality are intermixing, when they are typically kept separate in school. I see the healing power of shamanism as spiritual, and I'm not sure how science could ever understand it. There is so much psychology in this chapter, but it seems like there should be a priest trying to understand a shaman. Lastly, I don't think shamanism is all trickery, but I'm sure there is probably a lot of fakes. Overall, I found this reading interesting.
Hughes (Chapter 6) & Walsh (Part IV)
Hughes
When Professor Kearney asked what makes an artist a good artist, I thought of her question in a very broad sense. I defined it as the degree in which a person can express themselves while utilizing a pencil, a brush, or whatever. Instead of a pencil or brush, it could even be a sword or a pair of nunchaku (numb chucks). An artist is such a broad concept.
First thing that comes to my mind, when I think of artist is a martial artist. Believe it or not, that force that drives a martial artists to express himself through a kata (prearranged form) is very similar to the force that drives a musician or painter.
Later in the discussion, it became clear to me that we were focusing our attention on the artist who is able to reproduce something they see, with that pencil or brush. If that is the case, then I believe true skill depends on that persons ability to pay particular attention to fine details, and then have an ability to translate that idea to a particular medium. But, attention to fine detail is not a requirement to create art, in my opinion.
Chapter 6 in Hughes book was rather refreshing, though it did not include the kind of insights that I was hoping for.
I can understand why so many people devote their entire selves to art. It feels god to express yourself. It's healthy.
Walsh
It's no surprise that most Westerners see shamans as primitive, demons, or madman. This semester, we've discussed Shamanism in great detail. I think we all have a pretty good understand of what shamans are and are not. I think this section really solidified my understanding, and gave me a taste of what shamans are up against.
Western scientists and psychiatrists are tough to beat, and even harder to convince. They consider anything not backed by empirical evidence, fanciful, and it isn't hard to see why.
Despite the lack of evidence supporters of shamans hold, I think it is dangerous for Westerners to label the unfamiliar or unique as inferior or dysfunctional.
I think there is something powerful about shamanism. A good look at history, and the art left behind, proves that Shamanism has been quite influential in our development. Even with all of the technology we have, it still has a place in our world. I find this interesting.
In Chapter 13, Walsh focused on several controversial tests that exist. They are designed to measure personality and spiritual mastery. I'm interested in reading more about this.
If the ability to bring back messages from the divine is real, then surely this skill is realized only by a few. Yet, there are probably thousands of people who claim to be shamans. So many people make a living (or fame) by means of deceit. Surely Shamanism has its charlatans as well. I cant help but think of the psychics who claim to be able to speak with the dead. The majority of these people are cold reading. Many of them have a past filled with fraudulent activities. For example, Silvia Browne, who is on Montel Williams from time to time, has been busted in the past for fraud. What a mess. And we are supposed to believe this woman (or people like her), as she pumps out book after book on the "other side".
I'd have a lot more faith in these village shamans, who aren't getting fame or fortune.
Despite the fact that I believe in the power of shamanism, I can not deny that there MUST be more evidence to support their craft before it can be taken serious by the mainstream of society.
When Professor Kearney asked what makes an artist a good artist, I thought of her question in a very broad sense. I defined it as the degree in which a person can express themselves while utilizing a pencil, a brush, or whatever. Instead of a pencil or brush, it could even be a sword or a pair of nunchaku (numb chucks). An artist is such a broad concept.
First thing that comes to my mind, when I think of artist is a martial artist. Believe it or not, that force that drives a martial artists to express himself through a kata (prearranged form) is very similar to the force that drives a musician or painter.
Later in the discussion, it became clear to me that we were focusing our attention on the artist who is able to reproduce something they see, with that pencil or brush. If that is the case, then I believe true skill depends on that persons ability to pay particular attention to fine details, and then have an ability to translate that idea to a particular medium. But, attention to fine detail is not a requirement to create art, in my opinion.
Chapter 6 in Hughes book was rather refreshing, though it did not include the kind of insights that I was hoping for.
I can understand why so many people devote their entire selves to art. It feels god to express yourself. It's healthy.
Walsh
It's no surprise that most Westerners see shamans as primitive, demons, or madman. This semester, we've discussed Shamanism in great detail. I think we all have a pretty good understand of what shamans are and are not. I think this section really solidified my understanding, and gave me a taste of what shamans are up against.
Western scientists and psychiatrists are tough to beat, and even harder to convince. They consider anything not backed by empirical evidence, fanciful, and it isn't hard to see why.
Despite the lack of evidence supporters of shamans hold, I think it is dangerous for Westerners to label the unfamiliar or unique as inferior or dysfunctional.
I think there is something powerful about shamanism. A good look at history, and the art left behind, proves that Shamanism has been quite influential in our development. Even with all of the technology we have, it still has a place in our world. I find this interesting.
In Chapter 13, Walsh focused on several controversial tests that exist. They are designed to measure personality and spiritual mastery. I'm interested in reading more about this.
If the ability to bring back messages from the divine is real, then surely this skill is realized only by a few. Yet, there are probably thousands of people who claim to be shamans. So many people make a living (or fame) by means of deceit. Surely Shamanism has its charlatans as well. I cant help but think of the psychics who claim to be able to speak with the dead. The majority of these people are cold reading. Many of them have a past filled with fraudulent activities. For example, Silvia Browne, who is on Montel Williams from time to time, has been busted in the past for fraud. What a mess. And we are supposed to believe this woman (or people like her), as she pumps out book after book on the "other side".
I'd have a lot more faith in these village shamans, who aren't getting fame or fortune.
Despite the fact that I believe in the power of shamanism, I can not deny that there MUST be more evidence to support their craft before it can be taken serious by the mainstream of society.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Week 9
Hughes
Hughes mentions that in the case of Mozart, "the connection between" his "talent and creativity is not straightforward (Hughes 80)." Leopold Mozart could have influenced his son, or the proper "opportunity, motivation, and hard work" could have been the overriding factors contributing to Mozart's success. All of the above most likely contributed in some way to Mozart's musical output, but his natural ability probably overshadowed any peripheral influences in his life. Wolfgang began composing his own music at age six, drafting complete sympohonies at age ten, and finished an entire opera by age fourteen. This type of natural talent seems to avail any influence exerted by marginal forces, figures, or social factors. He wrote to his father that " I pay not attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame...I simply follow my own feelings." Mozart's surviving manuscripts attest to his unparalleled ability, exhibiting not amendments, smudges or mistakes at all (unlike those of Beethoven). They are quite literally flawless compositions. Joseph Hayden, a great classical composer, exclaimed to Mozart's father that "I swear before Almighty God that your son is the greatest composer I know either in person or by reputation."
Walsh
The Walsh reading was an arbitrary and ambiguous commentary on shamanism. Walsh probes the claim that shamans were epileptics, and concludes that some may have been but most probably were not. Hysterical shamans probably existed too, but most probably were not. A lot of shamans were indeed tricksters, but some were not (which is debatable). How much accountability should those individuals have to bear, or do we simply reject them as isolated incidents of exploiting social and political power? Additionally, he notes that some shaman's hallucinations and delusions could have been legitimately diagnosed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, yet others merely dismissed as examples of cultural ignorance. Futhermore, Rorschach results are highly inaccurate, yet sometimes their results merit further examination. While trying to leave no stone unturned, Walsh's discourse seems to sway back and forth like the motion of a pendulum. At any rate, I was initially looking forward to reading about some specific data that may have been done on this topic, especially given Walsh's scientific background. A combination of unscientifically trained ethnographic accounts and a void in contemporary scientific information impedes any conclusive or comprehensive understanding of shamanism, which seems to imply that that sort of information may not ever congeal. Finally, Walsh demonstrates why we should not solely let the initials M.D. and PH.D dictate how we listen to a person's argument.
Hughes mentions that in the case of Mozart, "the connection between" his "talent and creativity is not straightforward (Hughes 80)." Leopold Mozart could have influenced his son, or the proper "opportunity, motivation, and hard work" could have been the overriding factors contributing to Mozart's success. All of the above most likely contributed in some way to Mozart's musical output, but his natural ability probably overshadowed any peripheral influences in his life. Wolfgang began composing his own music at age six, drafting complete sympohonies at age ten, and finished an entire opera by age fourteen. This type of natural talent seems to avail any influence exerted by marginal forces, figures, or social factors. He wrote to his father that " I pay not attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame...I simply follow my own feelings." Mozart's surviving manuscripts attest to his unparalleled ability, exhibiting not amendments, smudges or mistakes at all (unlike those of Beethoven). They are quite literally flawless compositions. Joseph Hayden, a great classical composer, exclaimed to Mozart's father that "I swear before Almighty God that your son is the greatest composer I know either in person or by reputation."
Walsh
The Walsh reading was an arbitrary and ambiguous commentary on shamanism. Walsh probes the claim that shamans were epileptics, and concludes that some may have been but most probably were not. Hysterical shamans probably existed too, but most probably were not. A lot of shamans were indeed tricksters, but some were not (which is debatable). How much accountability should those individuals have to bear, or do we simply reject them as isolated incidents of exploiting social and political power? Additionally, he notes that some shaman's hallucinations and delusions could have been legitimately diagnosed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, yet others merely dismissed as examples of cultural ignorance. Futhermore, Rorschach results are highly inaccurate, yet sometimes their results merit further examination. While trying to leave no stone unturned, Walsh's discourse seems to sway back and forth like the motion of a pendulum. At any rate, I was initially looking forward to reading about some specific data that may have been done on this topic, especially given Walsh's scientific background. A combination of unscientifically trained ethnographic accounts and a void in contemporary scientific information impedes any conclusive or comprehensive understanding of shamanism, which seems to imply that that sort of information may not ever congeal. Finally, Walsh demonstrates why we should not solely let the initials M.D. and PH.D dictate how we listen to a person's argument.
The Hughes reading was interesting. I like that he addressed the mental states of various artists. They really run the gamut!! Erdos is probably the most extreme example (p.80). His type is personified in fictional writings, television and movies, yet is hopefully very uncommon. He was an mathematical genius, yet couldn't care for himself. He was a leech to friends, and from the sounds of it, maybe even to people he really wasn't friends with. Personally, I have to think that he had a true, severe psychological disorder, and that it wasn't just a matter of him being SUCH a mathematical genius that there was little room in his brain for anything else. There are plenty of very creative artists who can fully function in life, so there is proof that it can be done.
Walsh talks similarly about the shamanic experience. Since most Westerners don't understand the shamanic experience, the write it off as a psychological disorder. It has been diagnosed as: epilepsy, hysteria, psychosis and schizophrenia. While Western creatives can be consumed by their work and ignore their surroundings, and even their own self-care, Walsh states that shamans are often the most functional members of their communities (p. 107).
There is a piece by Stephen Spender that is referenced by Hughes (p. 86), which addresses the creative process. True, Beethoven was a musical genius, but a slow genius. It took him years to write his symphonies, and much development was needed to get from the original ideas to the end product. He jotted down bars here and there, finally piecing them together and forming the beautiful works we now know. Mozart, on the hand, came up with entire pieces in his head and then put them to paper, from beginning to end. No one would argue that Beethoven was not a musical genius. The contrast between these two artists shows how different the creative process can be from person to person.
Walsh talks similarly about the shamanic experience. Since most Westerners don't understand the shamanic experience, the write it off as a psychological disorder. It has been diagnosed as: epilepsy, hysteria, psychosis and schizophrenia. While Western creatives can be consumed by their work and ignore their surroundings, and even their own self-care, Walsh states that shamans are often the most functional members of their communities (p. 107).
There is a piece by Stephen Spender that is referenced by Hughes (p. 86), which addresses the creative process. True, Beethoven was a musical genius, but a slow genius. It took him years to write his symphonies, and much development was needed to get from the original ideas to the end product. He jotted down bars here and there, finally piecing them together and forming the beautiful works we now know. Mozart, on the hand, came up with entire pieces in his head and then put them to paper, from beginning to end. No one would argue that Beethoven was not a musical genius. The contrast between these two artists shows how different the creative process can be from person to person.
Walsh iv, Hughes 6
I found the seven 'intelligences' to be interesting...although, I don't think you can stick one person in just one category. Someone might be good with numbers and good at drawing which would put them in logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences'. I like the point that a personality evolves within the individuals culture.
Also, how child copes with difficult situations will decide how they will deal with a personality trait. And, a child may often feel pressure to get into a certain field because their parents did.
The three stages of diagnosing shamans were interesting:devilization: seeing a shaman as doing evil, being demonic, medicalization: from a psychiatric point of view, being simply disturbed, not evil, and idealization: the vision that they are not demons or disturbed. A round of enthusiasts seeing them as spiritual masters.
Also, how child copes with difficult situations will decide how they will deal with a personality trait. And, a child may often feel pressure to get into a certain field because their parents did.
The three stages of diagnosing shamans were interesting:devilization: seeing a shaman as doing evil, being demonic, medicalization: from a psychiatric point of view, being simply disturbed, not evil, and idealization: the vision that they are not demons or disturbed. A round of enthusiasts seeing them as spiritual masters.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Hughes 6 ; Walsh Part IV
Walsh IV-
I liked the reference to the patient who has problems and is asked to bring forth a rock to the shaman and asked during the ASC the visions he see's in the rock can heel himself. Also what was interesting was how the Eskimo shaman does his healing process with the belt. Also what I found to be different was that the shaman himself can seek answers to questions or probelms he faces while healing someone else. I don't know if I going along believing the theory about cancer and as soon as it's gone you don't think about it but the moment you do, it's back. I think the prayers and medicane do the healing! Also what I was stunned about is that the more popular a shaman becomes the more he can't devote the needed time to someone, my question is does he have helpers?
Hughes 6-
This chapter really related to me in more ways than one. As a little girl my father wanted me to play the panio and even though I did not want to he wanted me to. As Hughes states, "In this regard the desire to please the parent may be a major facotr in the artist's motavation." -80. Endless love is also considered and ASC because Tart said, " its a passionate absorption in the object of desire, to the exlusion of much else in the world, a combination of arousal, love, and total focus." -82. When you are in love there is nothing in the world that can stop you from loving that person and having feelings for them. I beleive that sex isn't everything because behind the lust must lie passion of love. In order to have sexual relationships you must love someone, not in most terms but people will say nah there just a person to have fun with but they don't like to show their emotions.
I liked the reference to the patient who has problems and is asked to bring forth a rock to the shaman and asked during the ASC the visions he see's in the rock can heel himself. Also what was interesting was how the Eskimo shaman does his healing process with the belt. Also what I found to be different was that the shaman himself can seek answers to questions or probelms he faces while healing someone else. I don't know if I going along believing the theory about cancer and as soon as it's gone you don't think about it but the moment you do, it's back. I think the prayers and medicane do the healing! Also what I was stunned about is that the more popular a shaman becomes the more he can't devote the needed time to someone, my question is does he have helpers?
Hughes 6-
This chapter really related to me in more ways than one. As a little girl my father wanted me to play the panio and even though I did not want to he wanted me to. As Hughes states, "In this regard the desire to please the parent may be a major facotr in the artist's motavation." -80. Endless love is also considered and ASC because Tart said, " its a passionate absorption in the object of desire, to the exlusion of much else in the world, a combination of arousal, love, and total focus." -82. When you are in love there is nothing in the world that can stop you from loving that person and having feelings for them. I beleive that sex isn't everything because behind the lust must lie passion of love. In order to have sexual relationships you must love someone, not in most terms but people will say nah there just a person to have fun with but they don't like to show their emotions.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pearce Ch. 5 & 6; Electronic Reserve (attempt)
Pearce has again filled up more pages than needed. I can recall turning to my girlfriend while reading this and saying, "He could have said all of this in one sentence and spared us the technical reasoning and mumbo-jumbo jargon." Basically I think that Pearce is telling us (again and again and again) that we have the possibility to do ANYTHING. I was immediately pulled back to a quote by John Lennon of the Beatles that goes, "I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?" Pearce is saying that if it's in your mind, it can exist outside of the mind if you really want it to - another Lennon quote goes with this when he said something along the lines of 'war is over, if you want it to'. If we are this "mirror" and everything else is the other "mirror", when we make a "move" or a change in thought or a progression of thought, the other "mirror" is going to experience that change - a collective consciousness. Though I find Pearce to talk in ramblings, I digg the fact that he discredits the idea of a "discovery" and rather calls it a "creation". This goes along nicely with the theme of our class that seems to be over casted by the all powerful altered states theme: creativity. All the things we experience are a result of someones creativity. All you have to do to be creative is "move" in your "mirror" even if it's only a slight "movement".
Because of my absence from class on Thursday I can only speculate to what the electronic reserve handouts were about (I could not find them on any electronic reserve). It seems that one of the topics was law enforcement. This is a topic I could go on for hours about naturally. I completely loathe the fact that certain drugs are illegal - the drugs that don't harm anyone like LSD, Mushrooms, Cannabis, Opium, and various psychedelic substances. I find it a bit ironic that these drugs are looked down upon so much while the mind-controlling pharmaceuticals are shoved down our throats daily. It's also wonderful that the drugs that really harm people such as Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine, are the ones that are being brought in an distributed by our govt. They are treated the same way as drugs that are on a completely different level. Personally I believe that if you want to do something, do it - why not? As I traveled back from the Dead reunion this afternoon I began to think that there are two types of people: ones that ask "why?" and ones that ask "why not?" We seem to only persecute the people who ask "why not?" This leads me to my other speculated topic of one of the handouts: a psychedelic society. I think that this is what Pearce wants us to live in. Not psychedelic in terms of drug use, but psychedelic in terms of the way we think "normally". In order to have "advancements" or to evolve, we have to live inside of our thoughts for some time. We have to get inside of our ideas and not care about the consequences. We have to ask "why not?"
Because of my absence from class on Thursday I can only speculate to what the electronic reserve handouts were about (I could not find them on any electronic reserve). It seems that one of the topics was law enforcement. This is a topic I could go on for hours about naturally. I completely loathe the fact that certain drugs are illegal - the drugs that don't harm anyone like LSD, Mushrooms, Cannabis, Opium, and various psychedelic substances. I find it a bit ironic that these drugs are looked down upon so much while the mind-controlling pharmaceuticals are shoved down our throats daily. It's also wonderful that the drugs that really harm people such as Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine, are the ones that are being brought in an distributed by our govt. They are treated the same way as drugs that are on a completely different level. Personally I believe that if you want to do something, do it - why not? As I traveled back from the Dead reunion this afternoon I began to think that there are two types of people: ones that ask "why?" and ones that ask "why not?" We seem to only persecute the people who ask "why not?" This leads me to my other speculated topic of one of the handouts: a psychedelic society. I think that this is what Pearce wants us to live in. Not psychedelic in terms of drug use, but psychedelic in terms of the way we think "normally". In order to have "advancements" or to evolve, we have to live inside of our thoughts for some time. We have to get inside of our ideas and not care about the consequences. We have to ask "why not?"
Law enforcement
I thought the Law enforcement article was very interesting and the write made some very compelling points. the writer argues that using psychedelic drugs used for religious purposes should be allowed in the U.S based on the first amendment. He states that there is a major difference between leisure drug use and religious drug use, in leisure use of drugs there is no control and there could also be selling, buying, and laundering. Drug usage in a religious setting is controlled in a sense that the religion giving these drugs to their congregation for a better spiritual experience knows how much of the drug should be given. The problem the writer has is law enforcement is cracking down on drug use and there busting up religious ceremonies because of the drugs. He understands that the law enforcement officers are trying to keep drugs off the streets and away from everybody, but especially children. Everybody should know my view on this but i will state it anyway. If the drugs are illegal I do not care of the drugs are used for a religious ceremony or not they are illegal in the U.S.A which means they should not be allowed.
The second of the electronic reserve readings had to do with another reality (I think) i have to admit i really had a hard time keeping up with this writer, she went from one place to another so quickly. I believe the general idea of this article is she says Americans should leave this reality create a new language and live in that reality (something like that) , so shes basically saying humans "should ban a belief system for a direct experience".
The second of the electronic reserve readings had to do with another reality (I think) i have to admit i really had a hard time keeping up with this writer, she went from one place to another so quickly. I believe the general idea of this article is she says Americans should leave this reality create a new language and live in that reality (something like that) , so shes basically saying humans "should ban a belief system for a direct experience".
Psychedics and Law Enforcement
For the psychedilic assignment I think he was saying that we all see things from each of our own point of view based on the lives we live and what we have seen in the world. We all live in our own perceived realities and sometimes see things in one dimension and not as whole.We choose to beleive only what we wanna believe and we remove or close out the possibility of objectivity and mind oppenness.
The second article which highlights sort of the war on drugs is interesting. Out of everythig else the government can chase after they choose to cracking down on drugs. This drugs if used correctly I don't think harm anyone. One has to ask themselves who brings the drugs into the country.? Its not the users but the people in charge just trying to make a buck out of its citizens and jail everybody up. The rockeffella drug sentencing of the 80s have wrecked a lot of lives. Particularly minorities who are given steep sentences just for using these recreational drugs. They are given the same sentences that a murderer and a rapist should be getting. So the drug banning benefits them and scrwes us over.
The second article which highlights sort of the war on drugs is interesting. Out of everythig else the government can chase after they choose to cracking down on drugs. This drugs if used correctly I don't think harm anyone. One has to ask themselves who brings the drugs into the country.? Its not the users but the people in charge just trying to make a buck out of its citizens and jail everybody up. The rockeffella drug sentencing of the 80s have wrecked a lot of lives. Particularly minorities who are given steep sentences just for using these recreational drugs. They are given the same sentences that a murderer and a rapist should be getting. So the drug banning benefits them and scrwes us over.
Pearce, McKenna, Sterling
Pearce and McKenna seem to agree on science being against us. Pearce quotes McKeller with, "The idea that scientific principles are parts of nature can seroiusly impede the progress of our knowledge" (86) while McKenna writes about science, "They have built into them the most naive and unexamined assumptions" (61). There seems to always be this science vs. religion theme in the world. I understand the opposing views---but can't it be that both are right? I happended to like the quote on page 81 by Pearce that "What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is." That is, whatever you want to see or experience in any situation, you will see or experience. If you think you're going to have a great time at the party, then you will. On the other hand, I've been to parties (I use parties as an example because they're usually considered to be a good time) where I knew ahead of time that I probably wasn't going to enjoy myself---and I didn't. I think if I would have left myself open to the experience and maybe even tried to have a good time, then I would have. Another quote that I liked was, "Only a sustanied passionate belief could have leaped the logical gap between that "imagined," created within the mind's eye, imaged from possiblity in spite of the lack of sensory evidence, and the final answer, translated into reality through enormous expenditures of time, effort, group belief, money, and with even the passionate urgency of war to hasten its final birth" (93). This means that if you can think it, then it can be real. It is possible to manifest your thoughts into reality through strong belief despite the fact that you don't know all of the details and can't fill in all of the blanks. Also, Pearce writes about fire-walking which just blows my mind. I want to see this (first) and then I'd like to try it. If this isn't enough thought into 'reality' for you then I don't know what is. He went as far as to say that the fire-walkers and also the people with the hooks in their skin didn't have so much as a mark on their bodies where there should have been burns or puncture wounds. Amazing!
I think McKenna's piece is a call-to-action for us all to turn off our televisions and become more aware. I understand what he's saying but there's something about his sense of urgency that puts me off. It's as if he wants us all to follow what he's saying without any thought about it.
As an aspiring attorney, I suppose I should watch what I say about Sterling's article. It is interesting though that all 'drugs' are classified as 'drugs' which I think I pointed out in an earlier blog. I don't want to get into an argument about our Constitutional rights either but how can we say that one person is permitted (by law) to pray while another is not permitted (by law) to use peyote even though they both represent similar things to the individuals involved. This article reminded me of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but part of the book dealt with the CIA, FBI, (insert numerous other acronyms) and how we have this "war on drugs" yet there's evidence suggesting that our government is partly responsible for funding, growing, and shipping drugs into this country.
I think McKenna's piece is a call-to-action for us all to turn off our televisions and become more aware. I understand what he's saying but there's something about his sense of urgency that puts me off. It's as if he wants us all to follow what he's saying without any thought about it.
As an aspiring attorney, I suppose I should watch what I say about Sterling's article. It is interesting though that all 'drugs' are classified as 'drugs' which I think I pointed out in an earlier blog. I don't want to get into an argument about our Constitutional rights either but how can we say that one person is permitted (by law) to pray while another is not permitted (by law) to use peyote even though they both represent similar things to the individuals involved. This article reminded me of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but part of the book dealt with the CIA, FBI, (insert numerous other acronyms) and how we have this "war on drugs" yet there's evidence suggesting that our government is partly responsible for funding, growing, and shipping drugs into this country.
Religion and drugs
Fire walking is a very dangerous thing. I understand that some cultures do it to achieve their highest social status. This is a way for them to show their superiority above all others. How can one just randomly show up to the Kataragama affair and think that they will have achieved the proper state of being to be able to walk over fire unscathed? The people who do all the preparations properly are way more likely to survive. It takes 3 months to get your mind in the right place while Westerners try to butt right in at the end and take the front row to all the action and even try to participate. How can a total belief in a God give you the unquestioning power to be able to walk across fire, hold a scalding pot on your head, or be poked with needles and have nothing physically happen to you? These people would probably live forever because they can never get hurt. Does this make them shaman? They probably don’t have healing power but they certainly have supernatural powers. Pearce says that fire walking is an autistic power. How can an autistic power give you so much physical difference from the norm?
America is supposed to be the land of the free. I know that drugs are harmful and that the government wants to protect us but Sterling states that this land was founded by people who wanted the right to practice their own religion their own way. Why was that freedom taken away from us? The Native Americans have gotten congress to approve their right to use peyote in their spiritual rituals. If anything should be banned from Native Americans it should probably be gambling and drinking. Religion should have the right to use what they need when they need it. Religion and its practices, what ever they might be, have been around a whole lot longer then the laws of any country. People used to say what religious group they were from then they changed it to what country but their true loyalty lies with religion. They shouldn’t have to abide by what the government deems acceptable because they want to cut down on abusers. Just because they are illegal doesn’t mean that there are abusers out there.
America is supposed to be the land of the free. I know that drugs are harmful and that the government wants to protect us but Sterling states that this land was founded by people who wanted the right to practice their own religion their own way. Why was that freedom taken away from us? The Native Americans have gotten congress to approve their right to use peyote in their spiritual rituals. If anything should be banned from Native Americans it should probably be gambling and drinking. Religion should have the right to use what they need when they need it. Religion and its practices, what ever they might be, have been around a whole lot longer then the laws of any country. People used to say what religious group they were from then they changed it to what country but their true loyalty lies with religion. They shouldn’t have to abide by what the government deems acceptable because they want to cut down on abusers. Just because they are illegal doesn’t mean that there are abusers out there.
Pychedelic Society/Law Enforcements Against Entheogens and Pearce
The articles by Sterling and McKenna were very interesting starting with Sterling's article, at the beginning he paints such a beautiful picture on that sunny beach and the energy the waves create. How through our experience we know the energy of these waves but when additional energy applied we see the "wave in a new light". This is true with this article, how Sterling transposes the energy of the wave "exposing God at work in creation, as the Great Designer of the interplay of the forces of life, as the Cosmic Choreographer." (165) "Entheogens", coming from the word entheos meaning en+ theos = GOD. The Law is constantly working to fight and protect the young from all this greed. As if these riches (entheogens) were or are going to corrupt us or open our eyes to other world/realities. "...the greed becomes power-one of the great evil powers of our times." (166) I understand that some drugs if taken or ingested without knowledge can be harmful or even fatal but what about all these written and rewritten laws covering and making very little distinctions among "all drugs".
The Peyote drug which is used for rituals within the Huichol people of North Central Mexico since 1620 and the Spanish conquistadors banned it as diabolic and made it illegal. This drug was never used "recreationally" or as a "drug of abuse" it was used in religious practices. Fortunately this drug was and is allowed to be used under the extended and regulated protection to Indian religions. Unfortunately for the rest of , we have been controlled from any usage of entheogens. Lastly, Sterling talks about how now these drugs don't have a "haven" and many are being arrested for drug charges , without knowing the primary usage of this drug. Law enforcements protect the youth because it is hard to distinguish what is the harmful street drugs verses the usage of entheogens in spiritual practices.
McKenna touches on a very important concept "If God did not exist, man would invent him." (60) As humans we are in constant search for something that is out there...the unknown whether it is a god or a statue or other world. It does not suffice to know that we are but the continuously transformation of information. "We all create our own universe because we are all operating with our own private languages which are only very crudely translatable into any other person's language." (61) We had spoken of "Language" as one of the themes for the Huxley book and we gathered that if we took language ( as we know it) out of the picture there wouldn't be OUR own PRIVATE language but a vast of openings without barriers...no different interpretation or translation but just ONE understanding. Just like the "photons" he spoke about and how we all can see something and interpret it in all distinct and different ways from each other.
I really liked when McKenna quotes Ludwig von Bertalanfe; he goes to say that there's an "anti-humanist tendency in all systems" (62) and that people aren't machines but when given a situation we act like machines falling into patterns and hold this concept and belief very close as if it were to dissolve away or something. I think this is very true. We tend to hold on to things that are man made because they are the "norms"(what we know) but sometimes we forget about the little vague things that mean the most. In the end we will exit with nothing but our bones and flesh to be recycled back into where we came from.
The Peyote drug which is used for rituals within the Huichol people of North Central Mexico since 1620 and the Spanish conquistadors banned it as diabolic and made it illegal. This drug was never used "recreationally" or as a "drug of abuse" it was used in religious practices. Fortunately this drug was and is allowed to be used under the extended and regulated protection to Indian religions. Unfortunately for the rest of , we have been controlled from any usage of entheogens. Lastly, Sterling talks about how now these drugs don't have a "haven" and many are being arrested for drug charges , without knowing the primary usage of this drug. Law enforcements protect the youth because it is hard to distinguish what is the harmful street drugs verses the usage of entheogens in spiritual practices.
McKenna touches on a very important concept "If God did not exist, man would invent him." (60) As humans we are in constant search for something that is out there...the unknown whether it is a god or a statue or other world. It does not suffice to know that we are but the continuously transformation of information. "We all create our own universe because we are all operating with our own private languages which are only very crudely translatable into any other person's language." (61) We had spoken of "Language" as one of the themes for the Huxley book and we gathered that if we took language ( as we know it) out of the picture there wouldn't be OUR own PRIVATE language but a vast of openings without barriers...no different interpretation or translation but just ONE understanding. Just like the "photons" he spoke about and how we all can see something and interpret it in all distinct and different ways from each other.
I really liked when McKenna quotes Ludwig von Bertalanfe; he goes to say that there's an "anti-humanist tendency in all systems" (62) and that people aren't machines but when given a situation we act like machines falling into patterns and hold this concept and belief very close as if it were to dissolve away or something. I think this is very true. We tend to hold on to things that are man made because they are the "norms"(what we know) but sometimes we forget about the little vague things that mean the most. In the end we will exit with nothing but our bones and flesh to be recycled back into where we came from.
Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto...
"Modern science is characterized by its ever-increasing specialization, necessitated by the enormous amount of data, the complexity of techniques and of theoretical structures within every field. Thus science is split into innumerable disciplines continually generating new subdisciplines. In consequence, the physicist, the biologist, the psychologist and the social scientist are, so to speak, encapusulated in their private universes, and it is difficult to get word from one cocoon to the other..." - Ludwig Von Bertalanffy.
This is kind of where I began my thoughts on this blog, seeing as I was so moved by the other quote from Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. I find it suitable that we are delving into science, as it would be, but more so “true” science, i.e. the science of the mind (if there is such a thing). I love how Pearce points out the idea of the mind being the “mirror of the universe.” We have been talking in some of my communication classes about how television and movies are not reliable realities but interpretations of the real world. It all began with the idea that media is no longer a mirror but a medium that is actually doing the constructing (or distorting the reflection). If you think about it, no camera, or film can ever capture a real moment, even if it’s just you and the camera. It is capturing its moment, from its perspective, from its frame of reference, from its use of lighting, from its transcription onto film, etc, etc, etc. However, what I am getting at is how our minds truly can be the mirrors of the universe and although we cannot capture moments, as McKenna pointed out; we can use our minds for “the exteriorization of the soul, and the interiorization of the body.”
The mind in a way can never be understood by us, or captured for the sake of examination, it is truly “a fourth dimensional organ of the body.” The mind is a medium, not an object, and we must use it externalize the desires of our soul and internalize the actions of our bodies. As McKenna alludes, we need to drop these belief systems which originated at times where people needed something to believe in and concentrate on living in the moment. Everyone today is obsessed with capturing their life on film, or in pictures, as if looking at them sometime will recreate that time of life. It won’t. That type of thinking only reinforces the societal norms and pretenses. There needs to be an appreciation of the present and a departure from the past (and past beliefs) where in we are focused on a progression toward a society unhindered by its own constructs.
As far as the science is concerned, it seems to have become a business centered around “fact” and is only willing to discuss that which it can justify. The facts it presents follow a linear model and many of the realities in our world are not linear. Therein lies the problem and the inability of science to understand the world as a whole. We can no longer see the world as just pieces of a puzzle. These scientists are content analyzing their portion of the world without regarding the scale at which the world functions and the level at which human beings are capable of experiencing it.
(Oh and as far as Law Enforcement is concerned, some creeper caught me smoking on campus and took my name and id# down, so now i have to look over my shoulder everytime i light up, thanks PSU Security!)
This is kind of where I began my thoughts on this blog, seeing as I was so moved by the other quote from Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. I find it suitable that we are delving into science, as it would be, but more so “true” science, i.e. the science of the mind (if there is such a thing). I love how Pearce points out the idea of the mind being the “mirror of the universe.” We have been talking in some of my communication classes about how television and movies are not reliable realities but interpretations of the real world. It all began with the idea that media is no longer a mirror but a medium that is actually doing the constructing (or distorting the reflection). If you think about it, no camera, or film can ever capture a real moment, even if it’s just you and the camera. It is capturing its moment, from its perspective, from its frame of reference, from its use of lighting, from its transcription onto film, etc, etc, etc. However, what I am getting at is how our minds truly can be the mirrors of the universe and although we cannot capture moments, as McKenna pointed out; we can use our minds for “the exteriorization of the soul, and the interiorization of the body.”
The mind in a way can never be understood by us, or captured for the sake of examination, it is truly “a fourth dimensional organ of the body.” The mind is a medium, not an object, and we must use it externalize the desires of our soul and internalize the actions of our bodies. As McKenna alludes, we need to drop these belief systems which originated at times where people needed something to believe in and concentrate on living in the moment. Everyone today is obsessed with capturing their life on film, or in pictures, as if looking at them sometime will recreate that time of life. It won’t. That type of thinking only reinforces the societal norms and pretenses. There needs to be an appreciation of the present and a departure from the past (and past beliefs) where in we are focused on a progression toward a society unhindered by its own constructs.
As far as the science is concerned, it seems to have become a business centered around “fact” and is only willing to discuss that which it can justify. The facts it presents follow a linear model and many of the realities in our world are not linear. Therein lies the problem and the inability of science to understand the world as a whole. We can no longer see the world as just pieces of a puzzle. These scientists are content analyzing their portion of the world without regarding the scale at which the world functions and the level at which human beings are capable of experiencing it.
(Oh and as far as Law Enforcement is concerned, some creeper caught me smoking on campus and took my name and id# down, so now i have to look over my shoulder everytime i light up, thanks PSU Security!)
McKenna writes about living with technology and how we as humans have become products of an assembly line where we become machines ourselves. The existential elements of his writing are standing outside our doorsteps waiting for us to come out and play.
We've become a society stuck on settling for ourselves. We often talk to people who, after reacting negatively to a situation, just shrug their shoulders, saying, "That's my nature." What? Since when did we become so lazy with ourselves that we find happiness in secluding our development? There is a cliche out there that states something about not knowing yourself until the day you die.
People settle for the problems within themselves and never try to learn from experiences or become stronger within themselves. They are often the one's, who when confronted with ideas outside of their everyday norm, become confused and uncomfortable.
The word faith pops up throughout our readings, and I feel that if such people have such a strong faith within themselves then why be so quick to jump down the throat of one that questions the way you feel. Shouldn't faith be indestructable to outside influence without one becoming so emotional and angry to these ideas. Is faith even a question of strength? Or are we looking at a battle between faith vs. beliefs. If faith is used as one's mask to hide fear, and a person becomes aggressive and defensive with anything arguing that faith, that person may be bursting into flames when walking across burning embers. (Foreshadowing... kind of)
(Segway First)
Faith is mentioned in Sterling's article. Certainly there is a big contradiction to our laws. However, Sterling doesn't really acknowledge that there are some idiots who abuse peyote and other spirtiual drugs for the purposes of just getting "messed up." They have no intentions of using the drug for spiritual reasons, and I find that the most unsettling point on these laws against entheogens. To use a drug for the purpose of just partying, in Sterling's case, would be sacrigelious, almost. He's talking about peyote use in rituals in a mature environment. Give me some peyote and I can find you five kids on campus that would take it without any knowledge of its origins. I could do it during our classtime today. It wouldn't take me any longer than using the restroom. In a similar situation, Penn State allows students to smoke in designated areas with places to discard your cigarette. However, people just stomp them out on the ground and walk away. Smoker's talk about "their rights," but when an area is willing to compromise, throwing a cigarette on the ground is probably the most stupid thing someone could do. The same goes for drug use, I believe.
(No segway)
I read "The Cosmic Egg" late last night. I like when reading all of Pearce's anecdotes about scientists, he suddenly smacks you awake with a quote of his own that sums up what you have just been reading for ten minutes.
"Each of us has an autistic openness for unlimited synthesis, but agreement on another's synthesis then limits our openness. It defines a specific area that can then no longer be open for us." Could this be where myths developed?
Question: Does the Humanities department put together courses that allow the students to make connections to all of their classes? Lance and I were discussing this conspiracy earlier today.
While reading Chapter 6, I kept thinking of a post that Wilbert had written a few weeks ago regarding the martial arts. He mentioned that when you see someone break a block of wood with their bare hands, you know that the discipline carries a whole lot of merit. I couldn't agree more with you, Wilbert. I think you should speak more often in class.
I spent my early childhood being severely sick with all kinds of breathing problems. My mom, who was running out of vacation time to take care of me, finally took me to the doctor, so he could put me on a presciption all winter long. Every so often my mom will say something about some other sickness that I don't recall having. My point is though, that my mother never treated me any different than my sister who was consistently healthy as a child. For instance, if I thought I was some strong man she encouraged me to think that way. She never babied me with some sickening sympathy that made me feel like a victim. I think she gave me some spiritual sense of myself that as time went on and I entered my later elementary school grades, I never missed a day of school. And even today, I do nothing beneficial to my health, but my doctor says I'm healthy.
Now I have to think of a closing that doesn't reference my childhood, or anything personal for that matter. Jenna gave me the idea to just post up a series of YouTube clips for my next blog. I'll write a subject and have a video connection for what I read without a written explanation.
That's still a pretty bad conclusion. Why am I so concerned with an ending today?
We've become a society stuck on settling for ourselves. We often talk to people who, after reacting negatively to a situation, just shrug their shoulders, saying, "That's my nature." What? Since when did we become so lazy with ourselves that we find happiness in secluding our development? There is a cliche out there that states something about not knowing yourself until the day you die.
People settle for the problems within themselves and never try to learn from experiences or become stronger within themselves. They are often the one's, who when confronted with ideas outside of their everyday norm, become confused and uncomfortable.
The word faith pops up throughout our readings, and I feel that if such people have such a strong faith within themselves then why be so quick to jump down the throat of one that questions the way you feel. Shouldn't faith be indestructable to outside influence without one becoming so emotional and angry to these ideas. Is faith even a question of strength? Or are we looking at a battle between faith vs. beliefs. If faith is used as one's mask to hide fear, and a person becomes aggressive and defensive with anything arguing that faith, that person may be bursting into flames when walking across burning embers. (Foreshadowing... kind of)
(Segway First)
Faith is mentioned in Sterling's article. Certainly there is a big contradiction to our laws. However, Sterling doesn't really acknowledge that there are some idiots who abuse peyote and other spirtiual drugs for the purposes of just getting "messed up." They have no intentions of using the drug for spiritual reasons, and I find that the most unsettling point on these laws against entheogens. To use a drug for the purpose of just partying, in Sterling's case, would be sacrigelious, almost. He's talking about peyote use in rituals in a mature environment. Give me some peyote and I can find you five kids on campus that would take it without any knowledge of its origins. I could do it during our classtime today. It wouldn't take me any longer than using the restroom. In a similar situation, Penn State allows students to smoke in designated areas with places to discard your cigarette. However, people just stomp them out on the ground and walk away. Smoker's talk about "their rights," but when an area is willing to compromise, throwing a cigarette on the ground is probably the most stupid thing someone could do. The same goes for drug use, I believe.
(No segway)
I read "The Cosmic Egg" late last night. I like when reading all of Pearce's anecdotes about scientists, he suddenly smacks you awake with a quote of his own that sums up what you have just been reading for ten minutes.
"Each of us has an autistic openness for unlimited synthesis, but agreement on another's synthesis then limits our openness. It defines a specific area that can then no longer be open for us." Could this be where myths developed?
Question: Does the Humanities department put together courses that allow the students to make connections to all of their classes? Lance and I were discussing this conspiracy earlier today.
While reading Chapter 6, I kept thinking of a post that Wilbert had written a few weeks ago regarding the martial arts. He mentioned that when you see someone break a block of wood with their bare hands, you know that the discipline carries a whole lot of merit. I couldn't agree more with you, Wilbert. I think you should speak more often in class.
I spent my early childhood being severely sick with all kinds of breathing problems. My mom, who was running out of vacation time to take care of me, finally took me to the doctor, so he could put me on a presciption all winter long. Every so often my mom will say something about some other sickness that I don't recall having. My point is though, that my mother never treated me any different than my sister who was consistently healthy as a child. For instance, if I thought I was some strong man she encouraged me to think that way. She never babied me with some sickening sympathy that made me feel like a victim. I think she gave me some spiritual sense of myself that as time went on and I entered my later elementary school grades, I never missed a day of school. And even today, I do nothing beneficial to my health, but my doctor says I'm healthy.
Now I have to think of a closing that doesn't reference my childhood, or anything personal for that matter. Jenna gave me the idea to just post up a series of YouTube clips for my next blog. I'll write a subject and have a video connection for what I read without a written explanation.
That's still a pretty bad conclusion. Why am I so concerned with an ending today?
Pearce ch.5-6
The 5th and 6th chapter of the book The Crack in the Cosmic Egg begins explaining how science is a creative art and how it’s a “joining of hands with all human endeavors, learning by its mistakes,” according to Sir Cyril Hinshelwood. Science is creative, but I would also say that all of science is not a creative work of art. Some things that science brings into existence are lethal and deadly. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have the weapons out in the world today or illegal drugs that science has created. There are many pros and cons. In one aspect, if we didn’t have scientific discoveries like medicine, more people would still be dieing of common sicknesses like pneumonia, colds, malaria, or even the flu. Things that are mostly controlled today by medicine that people didn’t have back then.
I don’t understand where Pearce went with this though. In one paragraph he says “ What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is.” What does that mean? Did he crack his egg again when he wrote this? It’s a very broad “pulled out of no-where” statement. He begins his writer explanation hopping shortly after. I am taken to a different author every paragraph. People I’ve never heard of making exclamations about art, about atoms, protons, neutrons, planets, God and religion, Hindu’s, voodoo, sacrifices, and fire burning. A mary-go-round of writers who state without any support for how they came up with their conclusions. Writers such asTeilhard, Singer, Michael Polanyi, Jung, Descarte’s, Apropos, Popper, Warren Weaver, Whitehead, McKellar, Brunar, Claude Bernard, Paulim Gerald Feinberg, David Bohm, James B. Conant, Max Planck, Leonard Feinberg, Gilbert Grosvenor, Arnold Kreschmal, and Eric Neumann.
Throughout the two chapters, Pearce makes a touchdown on controversy. He begins by saying possible reasons or purpose for Hindu’s and other people getting themselves in a spiritual state and walk over fire. Not only that, but how people are being able to withstand being stabbed, have hooks jabbed into their back, and not suffering from any bleeding, or have marks/blisters at all.
I do believe there are certain people out in the world that can get themselves in a state of mind, so focused on a goal, that they can overcome physical pain and feelings. Take Lance Armstrong for existence. A celebrity and pro-athlete who has overcome testicular cancer and a brain tumor, given a 40% chance to live, and he does. Not only that, but he trains for the Tour De France, while undergoing chemotherapy and surgeries. This just proves how faith and spirituality can put you at supernatural strengths. I believe that it is a person’s faith, in God, and in themselves, that equips them to be invincible. As Pearce described the people walking over the fire, he said how some burned to death, some suffered devastating burns, while others walked multiple times across the fire without so much as a single burn on their clothing, standing and dancing in fire, that was burning well over a 1000 degrees. This observation Pearce made was interesting. He definitely should have spent more of his time researching these fire ceremonies that take place, instead of talking about the other unsupported subjects.
I don’t understand where Pearce went with this though. In one paragraph he says “ What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is.” What does that mean? Did he crack his egg again when he wrote this? It’s a very broad “pulled out of no-where” statement. He begins his writer explanation hopping shortly after. I am taken to a different author every paragraph. People I’ve never heard of making exclamations about art, about atoms, protons, neutrons, planets, God and religion, Hindu’s, voodoo, sacrifices, and fire burning. A mary-go-round of writers who state without any support for how they came up with their conclusions. Writers such asTeilhard, Singer, Michael Polanyi, Jung, Descarte’s, Apropos, Popper, Warren Weaver, Whitehead, McKellar, Brunar, Claude Bernard, Paulim Gerald Feinberg, David Bohm, James B. Conant, Max Planck, Leonard Feinberg, Gilbert Grosvenor, Arnold Kreschmal, and Eric Neumann.
Throughout the two chapters, Pearce makes a touchdown on controversy. He begins by saying possible reasons or purpose for Hindu’s and other people getting themselves in a spiritual state and walk over fire. Not only that, but how people are being able to withstand being stabbed, have hooks jabbed into their back, and not suffering from any bleeding, or have marks/blisters at all.
I do believe there are certain people out in the world that can get themselves in a state of mind, so focused on a goal, that they can overcome physical pain and feelings. Take Lance Armstrong for existence. A celebrity and pro-athlete who has overcome testicular cancer and a brain tumor, given a 40% chance to live, and he does. Not only that, but he trains for the Tour De France, while undergoing chemotherapy and surgeries. This just proves how faith and spirituality can put you at supernatural strengths. I believe that it is a person’s faith, in God, and in themselves, that equips them to be invincible. As Pearce described the people walking over the fire, he said how some burned to death, some suffered devastating burns, while others walked multiple times across the fire without so much as a single burn on their clothing, standing and dancing in fire, that was burning well over a 1000 degrees. This observation Pearce made was interesting. He definitely should have spent more of his time researching these fire ceremonies that take place, instead of talking about the other unsupported subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
