According to my anthropology instructor, we pretty much all fall within the definition of "Shaman". Heeeeeee!
Not surprised. Did he offer any specifics?
According to anthropology instructors, you know who else was a shaman?
Hitler, that's who.
Hitler was probably psychotic enough to qualify as having had a "shamanic crisis" at some point, anyway. :x
Nigel - who's "we"? :?
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:37:22 AM
According to my anthropology instructor, we pretty much all fall within the definition of "Shaman". Heeeeeee!
Does this mean I have to start trying to pick up college kids at Starbucks? Because I can't stand people that young, for the most part, let alone have any desire to get in their pants. No, I think I'd wind up grabbing some hipster's copy of
Atlas Shrugged, and start beating people with it.
Another distressing possibility here is that I'd have to run down to the gem show every February and
not thump on new agers.
I'm really not happy about any of this.
I AM A SHAMAN, MAGICIAN, THE SUN IS PURPLE, 3D DIMENSIONS, I AM FOR MENTAL EXTENSIONS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk7TYBfADAc&feature=player_detailpage#t=349s) :lol:
Incidentally though, and somewhat seriously, I've seen the case be made that followers of all trickster-deities, which would include Eris, are actually anti-shamanic. I had this argument with WyldKat a long time ago, because she also went "Discordianism is Shamanism" (which I'm fairly sure was leading up to "and I am a Shaman", and then "therefore I am a Discordian", and finally "and I am not oppressing myself, so TCC does not hate Discordians").
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
Well, the dictionary defines a shaman as:
Quote1.spiritual leader: a spiritual leader who is believed to have special powers such as prophecy and the ability to heal
So, while we have the "prophecy" thing down, we're not so good with the healing thing.
ok I was expecting some particular kind of difference in philosophy, or something.
Well there's sort of a difference in the underlying philosophy. Shamans interact with spirits with the general intention of benefiting people, and probably sometimes to actively drive away mischievous spirits. Discordians offer mischievous spirits a gift basket and a good retirement plan.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:57:17 PM
ok I was expecting some particular kind of difference in philosophy, or something.
Their philosophy: Healed head good.
Our philosophy: Bleeding head good.
Their philosophy: You can get a job if you polish your chakras.
Our philosophy: You can get a job if you go out and apply for jobs.
Their philosophy: The shaman is the spiritual center of any society.
Our philosophy: The toilet is the spiritual center of any society.
Their philosophy: Listen to me, for I am wise.
Our philosophy: Listen to me, for I am a dumbass.
Quote from: Cainad on April 24, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
Well there's sort of a difference in the underlying philosophy. Shamans interact with spirits with the general intention of benefiting people, and probably sometimes to actively drive away mischievous spirits. Discordians offer mischievous spirits a gift basket and a good retirement plan.
This was the thought that occurred to me as well.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 03:01:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:57:17 PM
ok I was expecting some particular kind of difference in philosophy, or something.
Their philosophy: Healed head good.
Our philosophy: Bleeding head good.
Their philosophy: You can get a job if you polish your chakras.
Our philosophy: You can get a job if you go out and apply for jobs.
Their philosophy: The shaman is the spiritual center of any society.
Our philosophy: The toilet is the spiritual center of any society.
Their philosophy: Listen to me, for I am wise.
Our philosophy: Listen to me, for I am a dumbass.
Though I believe this may be a better and more accurate summation. :lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
From
Trickster Makes This World:
QuoteIn 1964, Mac Linscott Ricketts finished a doctoral thesis that is a remarkably wide-ranging survey of North American trickster tales. There and in later essays Ricketts has argued that the tales locate the trickster in opposition to the practice and beliefs of shamanism. To Ricketts way of thinking, humankind has two responses when faced with all that engenders awe and dread in this world: the way of the shaman (and the priests), which assumes a spiritual world, bows before it, and seeks to make alliances; and the way of the trickster (and the humanists), which recognizes no power beyond its own intelligence, and seeks to seize and subdue the unknown with wit and cunning. "The trickster...embodies [an] experience of Reality...in which humans feel themselves to be self-sufficient beings for whom the supernatural spirits are powers not to be worshipped, but ignored, to be overcome, or in the last analysis, mocked." The shaman enters the spirit world and works with it, but "the trickster is an outside...He has no friends in that other world...All that humans have gained from the unseen powers beyond-fire, fish, game, fresh water and so forth-have been obtained, by necessity, through trickery or theft..." In obtaining these goods, the trickster, unlike the shaman, "did not also obtain superhuman powers, or spiritual friendship...He seems to need no friends: he gets on very well by himself..."
To explore this idea, Ricketts shows how a number of trickster stories can be read as parodies of shamanism. In shamanic initiations, for example, spirits kill and resurrect the initiate, often placing something inside the resurrected body - a quartz crystal, for example - which the shaman can later call forth from his body during healing rituals. If someone in your group claims such powers, you may find wry humour in the stories which have Coyote, when he needs advice, calling forth (which much grunting) his own excrement. Likewise, dreams of flying are said to be premonitions of shamanic initiation, and the shaman in a trance can supposedly fly into the sky, into the underworld, into the deepest forest. With this in mind, it's hard not the hear the parodic tone in the almost universal stories of trickster trying to fly with the birds, only to fall ignominiously to earth. Trickster's failure implies that shamanic pretensions are daydreams at best, fakery at worst. "Humans were not made to fly...Trickster, like the human being, is an earth-bound creature, and his wish to fly (and to escape the human condition) is...a frivolous fancy."
Similarly, the "bungling host" stories may be not only about the instinctual ways of animals, as I argued in an earlier chapter, but about the shaman's claim to be able to acquire the power of other beings. Trickster fails to acquire powers because it flatly can't be done. "The trickster, in trying to get his food in the manner of the Kingfisher, for instance...is reaching for superhuman abilities. He is, in fact, attempting to transcend the human condition and live in a mode which is different from that which is proper for humans. Blundering efforts to do what animals do," Ricketts concludes, "may be viewed as mockery of shamans and all others who think they can get higher powers from animal spirits."
If the shaman in touch with higher spirits is the prophet of Native America, then trickster, his laughing shadow, is a prophet with a difference. Over and over the stories call attention to the actual constraints of human life: humans can't fly like birds; the dead do not return. These are a species of "eternal truth", but pointing them out draws attention to this world, not another. It is a revelation of fleshy bodies, not heavenly bodies. Beyond this, where parody is able to strip the things it mocks of their charm, it opens up spaces in which something new might happen. It is true when trickster breaks the rules we see the rules more clearly, but we also get a glimpse of everything the rules exclude. Commenting on Navajo stories, Barre Toelken writes: "Coyote functions in the oral literature as a symbol of that chaotic Everything with which man's rituals have created an order for survival." Mocking the rituals opens the door for the return of that chaotic Everything. From the shaman's point of view, the rules that trickster breaks articulate the ideal world, but from trickster's vantage point, if we think the ideal os real we are seriously mistaken and won't see half of what is right in front of us. We may wish our bodies produced quartz crystals, but the bowels regularly tell another story.
Sorry, a guest arrived RIGHT when I was posting that so I had to cut it short.
According to my instructor, anthropologically speaking, we are shamans because we are Holy Men™ who have direct access to our own Truths, making us, in a sense, religious specialists (for the purposes of an ethnographic study, which would recognize Discordianism as an informal religion). The distinction between a shaman and a priest is 1. that a priest is a full-time specialist and a shaman is a part-time specialist, and that 2. a priest may communicate with divinity but a shaman actually goes there.
We (by which I mean those of us who identify as Discordian Holy People in some way) all have other jobs, so we're part-time specialists, and we go there, in the form of "Being In the Spirit", "Taking it to the Wall", "Going to the End of the World", or "Saturday Night".
Furthermore, we offer advice and services to the common people. The fact that they may not appreciate said advice and services has no bearing.
Ergo, we are shamans in the ethnographic sense, and I think it's fairly predictable how Pagans will react to that news.
I feel a paper coming on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
Well, the dictionary defines a shaman as:
Quote1.spiritual leader: a spiritual leader who is believed to have special powers such as prophecy and the ability to heal
So, while we have the "prophecy" thing down, we're not so good with the healing thing.
Hey, man. Sometimes healing hurts.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sorry, a guest arrived RIGHT when I was posting that so I had to cut it short.
According to my instructor, anthropologically speaking, we are shamans because we are Holy Men™ who have direct access to our own Truths, making us, in a sense, religious specialists (for the purposes of an ethnographic study, which would recognize Discordianism as an informal religion). The distinction between a shaman and a priest is 1. that a priest is a full-time specialist and a shaman is a part-time specialist, and that 2. a priest may communicate with divinity but a shaman actually goes there.
We (by which I mean those of us who identify as Discordian Holy People in some way) all have other jobs, so we're part-time specialists, and we go there, in the form of "Being In the Spirit", "Taking it to the Wall", "Going to the End of the World", or "Saturday Night".
Furthermore, we offer advice and services to the common people. The fact that they may not appreciate said advice and services has no bearing.
Ergo, we are shamans in the ethnographic sense, and I think it's fairly predictable how Pagans will react to that news.
I feel a paper coming on.
I can accept this, and I will certainly abuse it. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sorry, a guest arrived RIGHT when I was posting that so I had to cut it short.
According to my instructor, anthropologically speaking, we are shamans because we are Holy Men™ who have direct access to our own Truths, making us, in a sense, religious specialists (for the purposes of an ethnographic study, which would recognize Discordianism as an informal religion). The distinction between a shaman and a priest is 1. that a priest is a full-time specialist and a shaman is a part-time specialist, and that 2. a priest may communicate with divinity but a shaman actually goes there.
We (by which I mean those of us who identify as Discordian Holy People in some way) all have other jobs, so we're part-time specialists, and we go there, in the form of "Being In the Spirit", "Taking it to the Wall", "Going to the End of the World", or "Saturday Night".
Furthermore, we offer advice and services to the common people. The fact that they may not appreciate said advice and services has no bearing.
Ergo, we are shamans in the ethnographic sense, and I think it's fairly predictable how Pagans will react to that news.
I feel a paper coming on.
Now we need to make the case that we're the only REALLY REAL Shamans in existence, and this is PERFECT troll fodder.
Does this mean I can legally eat a load of peyote and run about town gibbering about what I see?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:21:15 PM
Does this mean I can legally eat a load of peyote and run about town gibbering about what I see?
Unfortunately, no. We live in a repressive society that does not recognize our spiritual truths.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:24:18 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:21:15 PM
Does this mean I can legally eat a load of peyote and run about town gibbering about what I see?
Unfortunately, no. We live in a repressive society that does not recognize our spiritual truths.
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans? I was born in America. Canada's America too.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sorry, a guest arrived RIGHT when I was posting that so I had to cut it short.
According to my instructor, anthropologically speaking, we are shamans because we are Holy Men™ who have direct access to our own Truths, making us, in a sense, religious specialists (for the purposes of an ethnographic study, which would recognize Discordianism as an informal religion). The distinction between a shaman and a priest is 1. that a priest is a full-time specialist and a shaman is a part-time specialist, and that 2. a priest may communicate with divinity but a shaman actually goes there.
We (by which I mean those of us who identify as Discordian Holy People in some way) all have other jobs, so we're part-time specialists, and we go there, in the form of "Being In the Spirit", "Taking it to the Wall", "Going to the End of the World", or "Saturday Night".
Furthermore, we offer advice and services to the common people. The fact that they may not appreciate said advice and services has no bearing.
Ergo, we are shamans in the ethnographic sense, and I think it's fairly predictable how Pagans will react to that news.
I feel a paper coming on.
Now we need to make the case that we're the only REALLY REAL Shamans in existence, and this is PERFECT troll fodder.
Yes, oh yes. :lol: We are the only authentic modern-day shamanic religion. The others already hate us because we have a fully cohesive religion, and now we get shamanism, too!
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
We're not pretending to be something else, or to ride on the coattails of other people's traditions. That's what makes us uniquely authentic compared to other neo-religions. Furthermore, we are a shamanic religion that has spread globally and has unique markers which identify us as a loosely cohesive cultural group.
CAIN
is most likely closer with the trickster analogy, in describing a fair bulk of spags. i would imagine that pd is a fairly mixed bag though too. tricksters get over identified and generally, the good which tricksters account for is often overlooked.shaman characters have a "cruel gardener" side as well and the trickster is not necessarily nefarious at all. shaman the shaman and trickster are after all, addressing common concerns.
IT'S
like spags and libertarians.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:37:29 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
We're not pretending to be something else, or to ride on the coattails of other people's traditions. That's what makes us uniquely authentic compared to other neo-religions. Furthermore, we are a shamanic religion that has spread globally and has unique markers which identify us as a loosely cohesive cultural group.
huh. I haven't thought of Discordia along those lines before.
Sorry Cain; accessing from a phone in between classes. The idea that Trickster mythology is essentially a parody of shamanistic mythology is pretty fascinating. One of those things that seems obvious once pointed out.
That would make Discordianism anti-shamanic in that sense, insofar as it is also a counter argument to religiously prescribed worldviews in general.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
I thought the piece you posted was very interesting, Cain. I apologize that I did not comment on it earlier.
Ricketts' argument appears sound, though I do not know enough about the Native American traditions to comment on it more fully.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
From Trickster Makes This World:
QuoteIn 1964, Mac Linscott Ricketts finished a doctoral thesis that is a remarkably wide-ranging survey of North American trickster tales. There and in later essays Ricketts has argued that the tales locate the trickster in opposition to the practice and beliefs of shamanism. To Ricketts way of thinking, humankind has two responses when faced with all that engenders awe and dread in this world: the way of the shaman (and the priests), which assumes a spiritual world, bows before it, and seeks to make alliances; and the way of the trickster (and the humanists), which recognizes no power beyond its own intelligence, and seeks to seize and subdue the unknown with wit and cunning. "The trickster...embodies [an] experience of Reality...in which humans feel themselves to be self-sufficient beings for whom the supernatural spirits are powers not to be worshipped, but ignored, to be overcome, or in the last analysis, mocked." The shaman enters the spirit world and works with it, but "the trickster is an outside...He has no friends in that other world...All that humans have gained from the unseen powers beyond-fire, fish, game, fresh water and so forth-have been obtained, by necessity, through trickery or theft..." In obtaining these goods, the trickster, unlike the shaman, "did not also obtain superhuman powers, or spiritual friendship...He seems to need no friends: he gets on very well by himself..."
To explore this idea, Ricketts shows how a number of trickster stories can be read as parodies of shamanism. In shamanic initiations, for example, spirits kill and resurrect the initiate, often placing something inside the resurrected body - a quartz crystal, for example - which the shaman can later call forth from his body during healing rituals. If someone in your group claims such powers, you may find wry humour in the stories which have Coyote, when he needs advice, calling forth (which much grunting) his own excrement. Likewise, dreams of flying are said to be premonitions of shamanic initiation, and the shaman in a trance can supposedly fly into the sky, into the underworld, into the deepest forest. With this in mind, it's hard not the hear the parodic tone in the almost universal stories of trickster trying to fly with the birds, only to fall ignominiously to earth. Trickster's failure implies that shamanic pretensions are daydreams at best, fakery at worst. "Humans were not made to fly...Trickster, like the human being, is an earth-bound creature, and his wish to fly (and to escape the human condition) is...a frivolous fancy."
Similarly, the "bungling host" stories may be not only about the instinctual ways of animals, as I argued in an earlier chapter, but about the shaman's claim to be able to acquire the power of other beings. Trickster fails to acquire powers because it flatly can't be done. "The trickster, in trying to get his food in the manner of the Kingfisher, for instance...is reaching for superhuman abilities. He is, in fact, attempting to transcend the human condition and live in a mode which is different from that which is proper for humans. Blundering efforts to do what animals do," Ricketts concludes, "may be viewed as mockery of shamans and all others who think they can get higher powers from animal spirits."
If the shaman in touch with higher spirits is the prophet of Native America, then trickster, his laughing shadow, is a prophet with a difference. Over and over the stories call attention to the actual constraints of human life: humans can't fly like birds; the dead do not return. These are a species of "eternal truth", but pointing them out draws attention to this world, not another. It is a revelation of fleshy bodies, not heavenly bodies. Beyond this, where parody is able to strip the things it mocks of their charm, it opens up spaces in which something new might happen. It is true when trickster breaks the rules we see the rules more clearly, but we also get a glimpse of everything the rules exclude. Commenting on Navajo stories, Barre Toelken writes: "Coyote functions in the oral literature as a symbol of that chaotic Everything with which man's rituals have created an order for survival." Mocking the rituals opens the door for the return of that chaotic Everything. From the shaman's point of view, the rules that trickster breaks articulate the ideal world, but from trickster's vantage point, if we think the ideal os real we are seriously mistaken and won't see half of what is right in front of us. We may wish our bodies produced quartz crystals, but the bowels regularly tell another story.
Another perspective, which is very typical of Native American groups, is that the shaman cannot function without the Trickster. I can't agree with Ricketts assessment of the trickster as anti-shamanic because, like the archetypal shaman, Trickster walks freely between the living and spirit worlds, and in his bungling great creations are made. Toelken seems to have a clearer perspective, but really, there are so many failings anytime a non-indian has tried to analyze indian perspectives. Rickett seems to be profoundly missing the boat there.
Also, not to be too pedantic, but Native American trickster characters aren't deities.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:37:29 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
We're not pretending to be something else, or to ride on the coattails of other people's traditions. That's what makes us uniquely authentic compared to other neo-religions. Furthermore, we are a shamanic religion that has spread globally and has unique markers which identify us as a loosely cohesive cultural group.
huh. I haven't thought of Discordia along those lines before.
That's what anthropology is for. It's also boring as fuck, so I'm trying to spice it up a bit.
However, I am not bullshitting that from an anthropological point of view and by an anthropological definition of the word "shaman", at least according to yesterday's lecture, Discordian Holy Men fulfill the role of shamans. If I was writing an ethnographical study of Discordians, that's the category I'd be sticking us in.
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
I thought the piece you posted was very interesting, Cain. I apologize that I did not comment on it earlier.
Ricketts' argument appears sound, though I do not know enough about the Native American traditions to comment on it more fully.
Rickett's argument appears to have been pulled directly out of his ass, without any particular knowledge of the cultures of origin for the stories he was attempting to make a religious analysis of by simply laying them on top of the dominant culture's worldview. Ricketts is a theologian, not an ethnographer.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
From Trickster Makes This World:
QuoteIn 1964, Mac Linscott Ricketts finished a doctoral thesis that is a remarkably wide-ranging survey of North American trickster tales. There and in later essays Ricketts has argued that the tales locate the trickster in opposition to the practice and beliefs of shamanism. To Ricketts way of thinking, humankind has two responses when faced with all that engenders awe and dread in this world: the way of the shaman (and the priests), which assumes a spiritual world, bows before it, and seeks to make alliances; and the way of the trickster (and the humanists), which recognizes no power beyond its own intelligence, and seeks to seize and subdue the unknown with wit and cunning. "The trickster...embodies [an] experience of Reality...in which humans feel themselves to be self-sufficient beings for whom the supernatural spirits are powers not to be worshipped, but ignored, to be overcome, or in the last analysis, mocked." The shaman enters the spirit world and works with it, but "the trickster is an outside...He has no friends in that other world...All that humans have gained from the unseen powers beyond-fire, fish, game, fresh water and so forth-have been obtained, by necessity, through trickery or theft..." In obtaining these goods, the trickster, unlike the shaman, "did not also obtain superhuman powers, or spiritual friendship...He seems to need no friends: he gets on very well by himself..."
To explore this idea, Ricketts shows how a number of trickster stories can be read as parodies of shamanism. In shamanic initiations, for example, spirits kill and resurrect the initiate, often placing something inside the resurrected body - a quartz crystal, for example - which the shaman can later call forth from his body during healing rituals. If someone in your group claims such powers, you may find wry humour in the stories which have Coyote, when he needs advice, calling forth (which much grunting) his own excrement. Likewise, dreams of flying are said to be premonitions of shamanic initiation, and the shaman in a trance can supposedly fly into the sky, into the underworld, into the deepest forest. With this in mind, it's hard not the hear the parodic tone in the almost universal stories of trickster trying to fly with the birds, only to fall ignominiously to earth. Trickster's failure implies that shamanic pretensions are daydreams at best, fakery at worst. "Humans were not made to fly...Trickster, like the human being, is an earth-bound creature, and his wish to fly (and to escape the human condition) is...a frivolous fancy."
Similarly, the "bungling host" stories may be not only about the instinctual ways of animals, as I argued in an earlier chapter, but about the shaman's claim to be able to acquire the power of other beings. Trickster fails to acquire powers because it flatly can't be done. "The trickster, in trying to get his food in the manner of the Kingfisher, for instance...is reaching for superhuman abilities. He is, in fact, attempting to transcend the human condition and live in a mode which is different from that which is proper for humans. Blundering efforts to do what animals do," Ricketts concludes, "may be viewed as mockery of shamans and all others who think they can get higher powers from animal spirits."
If the shaman in touch with higher spirits is the prophet of Native America, then trickster, his laughing shadow, is a prophet with a difference. Over and over the stories call attention to the actual constraints of human life: humans can't fly like birds; the dead do not return. These are a species of "eternal truth", but pointing them out draws attention to this world, not another. It is a revelation of fleshy bodies, not heavenly bodies. Beyond this, where parody is able to strip the things it mocks of their charm, it opens up spaces in which something new might happen. It is true when trickster breaks the rules we see the rules more clearly, but we also get a glimpse of everything the rules exclude. Commenting on Navajo stories, Barre Toelken writes: "Coyote functions in the oral literature as a symbol of that chaotic Everything with which man's rituals have created an order for survival." Mocking the rituals opens the door for the return of that chaotic Everything. From the shaman's point of view, the rules that trickster breaks articulate the ideal world, but from trickster's vantage point, if we think the ideal os real we are seriously mistaken and won't see half of what is right in front of us. We may wish our bodies produced quartz crystals, but the bowels regularly tell another story.
Another perspective, which is very typical of Native American groups, is that the shaman cannot function without the Trickster. I can't agree with Ricketts assessment of the trickster as anti-shamanic because, like the archetypal shaman, Trickster walks freely between the living and spirit worlds, and in his bungling great creations are made. Toelken seems to have a clearer perspective, but really, there are so many failings anytime a non-indian has tried to analyze indian perspectives. Rickett seems to be profoundly missing the boat there.
Also, not to be too pedantic, but Native American trickster characters aren't deities.
I could be mistaken, but I think they have different kinds of tricksters...a Lakota shaman probably wouldn't fool with Inktomi (he's kind of an example of what not to do) but I've heard of them being Heyokas.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 24, 2012, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
From Trickster Makes This World:
QuoteIn 1964, Mac Linscott Ricketts finished a doctoral thesis that is a remarkably wide-ranging survey of North American trickster tales. There and in later essays Ricketts has argued that the tales locate the trickster in opposition to the practice and beliefs of shamanism. To Ricketts way of thinking, humankind has two responses when faced with all that engenders awe and dread in this world: the way of the shaman (and the priests), which assumes a spiritual world, bows before it, and seeks to make alliances; and the way of the trickster (and the humanists), which recognizes no power beyond its own intelligence, and seeks to seize and subdue the unknown with wit and cunning. "The trickster...embodies [an] experience of Reality...in which humans feel themselves to be self-sufficient beings for whom the supernatural spirits are powers not to be worshipped, but ignored, to be overcome, or in the last analysis, mocked." The shaman enters the spirit world and works with it, but "the trickster is an outside...He has no friends in that other world...All that humans have gained from the unseen powers beyond-fire, fish, game, fresh water and so forth-have been obtained, by necessity, through trickery or theft..." In obtaining these goods, the trickster, unlike the shaman, "did not also obtain superhuman powers, or spiritual friendship...He seems to need no friends: he gets on very well by himself..."
To explore this idea, Ricketts shows how a number of trickster stories can be read as parodies of shamanism. In shamanic initiations, for example, spirits kill and resurrect the initiate, often placing something inside the resurrected body - a quartz crystal, for example - which the shaman can later call forth from his body during healing rituals. If someone in your group claims such powers, you may find wry humour in the stories which have Coyote, when he needs advice, calling forth (which much grunting) his own excrement. Likewise, dreams of flying are said to be premonitions of shamanic initiation, and the shaman in a trance can supposedly fly into the sky, into the underworld, into the deepest forest. With this in mind, it's hard not the hear the parodic tone in the almost universal stories of trickster trying to fly with the birds, only to fall ignominiously to earth. Trickster's failure implies that shamanic pretensions are daydreams at best, fakery at worst. "Humans were not made to fly...Trickster, like the human being, is an earth-bound creature, and his wish to fly (and to escape the human condition) is...a frivolous fancy."
Similarly, the "bungling host" stories may be not only about the instinctual ways of animals, as I argued in an earlier chapter, but about the shaman's claim to be able to acquire the power of other beings. Trickster fails to acquire powers because it flatly can't be done. "The trickster, in trying to get his food in the manner of the Kingfisher, for instance...is reaching for superhuman abilities. He is, in fact, attempting to transcend the human condition and live in a mode which is different from that which is proper for humans. Blundering efforts to do what animals do," Ricketts concludes, "may be viewed as mockery of shamans and all others who think they can get higher powers from animal spirits."
If the shaman in touch with higher spirits is the prophet of Native America, then trickster, his laughing shadow, is a prophet with a difference. Over and over the stories call attention to the actual constraints of human life: humans can't fly like birds; the dead do not return. These are a species of "eternal truth", but pointing them out draws attention to this world, not another. It is a revelation of fleshy bodies, not heavenly bodies. Beyond this, where parody is able to strip the things it mocks of their charm, it opens up spaces in which something new might happen. It is true when trickster breaks the rules we see the rules more clearly, but we also get a glimpse of everything the rules exclude. Commenting on Navajo stories, Barre Toelken writes: "Coyote functions in the oral literature as a symbol of that chaotic Everything with which man's rituals have created an order for survival." Mocking the rituals opens the door for the return of that chaotic Everything. From the shaman's point of view, the rules that trickster breaks articulate the ideal world, but from trickster's vantage point, if we think the ideal os real we are seriously mistaken and won't see half of what is right in front of us. We may wish our bodies produced quartz crystals, but the bowels regularly tell another story.
Another perspective, which is very typical of Native American groups, is that the shaman cannot function without the Trickster. I can't agree with Ricketts assessment of the trickster as anti-shamanic because, like the archetypal shaman, Trickster walks freely between the living and spirit worlds, and in his bungling great creations are made. Toelken seems to have a clearer perspective, but really, there are so many failings anytime a non-indian has tried to analyze indian perspectives. Rickett seems to be profoundly missing the boat there.
Also, not to be too pedantic, but Native American trickster characters aren't deities.
I could be mistaken, but I think they have different kinds of tricksters...a Lakota shaman probably wouldn't fool with Inktomi (he's kind of an example of what not to do) but I've heard of them being Heyokas.
There are many different trickster characters, and their roles vary widely, although they have certain commonalities (if you are familiar with stories from different nations, you will find that there is an ass-ton of overlap, with Iktomi, Coyote, and We-Gyet all performing the same roles in some of the same stories). However, Ricketts' attempt to force them into a mold of Western religious logic is asinine.
And yeah, the Heyoka (which I can only assume Ricketts was unaware of) is a good example of the interplay between trickster and shaman. They are certainly not diametrically opposite.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
I thought the piece you posted was very interesting, Cain. I apologize that I did not comment on it earlier.
Ricketts' argument appears sound, though I do not know enough about the Native American traditions to comment on it more fully.
Rickett's argument appears to have been pulled directly out of his ass, without any particular knowledge of the cultures of origin for the stories he was attempting to make a religious analysis of by simply laying them on top of the dominant culture's worldview. Ricketts is a theologian, not an ethnographer.
To clarify what I meant:It appears sound, based on the premises forwarded, and, given that I have no cultural knowledge of these traditions, I cannot judge the accuracy of the claims being made.
Your counter point is well noted, Nigel, thank you for forwarding it.
Phox,
Cultural knowledge consists of Mediterranean cultures ~2000+ years ago. :lol:
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
Just got back home and the first thing I was going to post was thanking you for answering my question.
However due to having a few other things on my mind, I can't read, internalize and give intelligent response to it right now. But I'm keeping the tab open and will do so later.
(Same thanks to Nigel btw, for expanding on the questions to the OP)
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans? I was born in America. Canada's America too.
I sat on a porch and whittled wood. I'm pretty sure that counts as well.
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 06:06:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
I thought the piece you posted was very interesting, Cain. I apologize that I did not comment on it earlier.
Ricketts' argument appears sound, though I do not know enough about the Native American traditions to comment on it more fully.
Rickett's argument appears to have been pulled directly out of his ass, without any particular knowledge of the cultures of origin for the stories he was attempting to make a religious analysis of by simply laying them on top of the dominant culture's worldview. Ricketts is a theologian, not an ethnographer.
To clarify what I meant:It appears sound, based on the premises forwarded, and, given that I have no cultural knowledge of these traditions, I cannot judge the accuracy of the claims being made.
Your counter point is well noted, Nigel, thank you for forwarding it.
Phox,
Cultural knowledge consists of Mediterranean cultures ~2000+ years ago. :lol:
Not criticizing you, Phox, just criticizing Ricketts. :)
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:37:29 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
We're not pretending to be something else, or to ride on the coattails of other people's traditions. That's what makes us uniquely authentic compared to other neo-religions. Furthermore, we are a shamanic religion that has spread globally and has unique markers which identify us as a loosely cohesive cultural group.
huh. I haven't thought of Discordia along those lines before.
The reason why I'm a Discordian is that it's ME, not a tag or a label or a uniform. While I heartily endorse wearing someone else's uniform for the purpose of ambush, I can't see wearing one to co-opt another religion's benefits or drawbacks.
Because then I'd be someone else.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:37:29 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Damn. What if we call ourselves Native Americans?
I am NOT wearing a pony tail, a tie-dye t shirt, shorts, and birkenstocks. That is the REQUIRED uniform of the male Cherohonkey
What if we say we're Algoncrackers instead?
We're not pretending to be something else, or to ride on the coattails of other people's traditions. That's what makes us uniquely authentic compared to other neo-religions. Furthermore, we are a shamanic religion that has spread globally and has unique markers which identify us as a loosely cohesive cultural group.
huh. I haven't thought of Discordia along those lines before.
The reason why I'm a Discordian is that it's ME, not a tag or a label or a uniform. While I heartily endorse wearing someone else's uniform for the purpose of ambush, I can't see wearing one to co-opt another religion's benefits or drawbacks.
Because then I'd be someone else.
I meant more along the lines of that I had thought of it as a Hellenic parody of New Age and Neopaganism with more meat than meets the eye. Now though, Nigel's post made me realize that the Hellenic bit is just a convenient metaphor for a Westerner and really has no other relation to Hellenism other than the use of the name Eris. It's a distinct 20th century jokeosophy. The only relation that could be drawn from Greece is if Diogenes vacationed in China and then went bowling. I have another thought bouncing around in my head but it's not quite formed yet.
I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of being a shaman. Probably because of some resistance to reframe the definition of shaman, which calls up an image of some dude dressed in animal skins tripping balls and playing with bones for the good of the tribe.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I meant more along the lines of that I had thought of it as a Hellenic parody of New Age and Neopaganism with more meat than meets the eye. Now though, Nigel's post made me realize that the Hellenic bit is just a convenient metaphor for a Westerner and really has no other relation to Hellenism other than the use of the name Eris. It's a distinct 20th century jokeosophy. The only relation that could be drawn from Greece is if Diogenes vacationed in China and then went bowling. I have another thought bouncing around in my head but it's not quite formed yet.
I don't think of Discordianism as a joke, or a philosophy about jokes.
I think of it as the thinking person's religion.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of being a shaman. Probably because of some resistance to reframe the definition of shaman, which calls up an image of some dude dressed in animal skins tripping balls and playing with bones for the good of the tribe.
I don't consider myself a shaman, though I do gorge myself on Cactus and spout Holiness™ from time to time. For the good of the neighbors.
But I'm willing to wear the uniform to give someone a case of the ass.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of being a shaman. Probably because of some resistance to reframe the definition of shaman, which calls up an image of some dude dressed in animal skins tripping balls and playing with bones for the good of the tribe.
I, on the other hand, am tickled pink by suddenly having a new definition of "shaman" that provides me with so very many amusing opportunities.
I feel like someone just handed me a new toy.
A shiny, wonderful new toy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
?
I spent 20 minutes trying to find the book in question, and then another 20 minutes typing out the section before, for everyone to gloss over it, because, I dunno, I am PD's Personal Research Assistant or something.
And only after I point that out does everyone suddenly feel the need to jump up and address it, which I probably find more annoying than the original act of being ignored. It clearly wasn't important enough to be commented on until I said something, so the only conclusion I can come to is that this kind of thing is some form of pandering.
It's completely killed my desire to write up anything. And makes me wonder exactly how much time I'm wasting in Aneristic Delusions and Or Kill Me.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:40:30 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of being a shaman. Probably because of some resistance to reframe the definition of shaman, which calls up an image of some dude dressed in animal skins tripping balls and playing with bones for the good of the tribe.
I, on the other hand, am tickled pink by suddenly having a new definition of "shaman" that provides me with so very many amusing opportunities.
I feel like someone just handed me a new toy.
A shiny, wonderful new toy.
And I can't
wait to throw it down the staircase! :banana:
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
?
I spent 20 minutes trying to find the book in question, and then another 20 minutes typing out the section before, for everyone to gloss over it, because, I dunno, I am PD's Personal Research Assistant or something.
And only after I point that out does everyone suddenly feel the need to jump up and address it, which I probably find more annoying than the original act of being ignored. It clearly wasn't important enough to be commented on until I said something, so the only conclusion I can come to is that this kind of thing is some form of pandering.
It's completely killed my desire to write up anything. And makes me wonder exactly how much time I'm wasting in Aneristic Delusions and Or Kill Me.
Cain, I didn't see it because it got eaten by the bottom of the page. Sorry.
Thinking of putting "shaman" on my psychic line listing. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I meant more along the lines of that I had thought of it as a Hellenic parody of New Age and Neopaganism with more meat than meets the eye. Now though, Nigel's post made me realize that the Hellenic bit is just a convenient metaphor for a Westerner and really has no other relation to Hellenism other than the use of the name Eris. It's a distinct 20th century jokeosophy. The only relation that could be drawn from Greece is if Diogenes vacationed in China and then went bowling. I have another thought bouncing around in my head but it's not quite formed yet.
I don't think of Discordianism as a joke, or a philosophy about jokes.
I think of it as the thinking person's religion.
It is that, in my opinion. It's actually a quite cohesive religious system. It is, as I've said before, a complete and living philosophy.
The interesting thing about this anthropological definition of "religion" and of "shaman" is that it's very very simple, which in a way it has to be in order to be able to apply to a vast diversity of cultures. A religion is a shared system of explaining the relationships between the visible and the non-visible. Every religion has people who specialize in it (that's us) who loosely fall either into the category of "Priest" or of "Shaman", as previously defined.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
?
I spent 20 minutes trying to find the book in question, and then another 20 minutes typing out the section before, for everyone to gloss over it, because, I dunno, I am PD's Personal Research Assistant or something.
And only after I point that out does everyone suddenly feel the need to jump up and address it, which I probably find more annoying than the original act of being ignored. It clearly wasn't important enough to be commented on until I said something, so the only conclusion I can come to is that this kind of thing is some form of pandering.
It's completely killed my desire to write up anything. And makes me wonder exactly how much time I'm wasting in Aneristic Delusions and Or Kill Me.
I didn't see it on the first read-through because it was the last post on the previous page, and I think you were posting while I was reading because it wasn't there when I got to the bottom of that page, and then I went to the next page. The reason people started commenting on it after you mentioned it is probably because they didn't see it until they went back and looked, for the same reason I didn't see it.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:47:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I meant more along the lines of that I had thought of it as a Hellenic parody of New Age and Neopaganism with more meat than meets the eye. Now though, Nigel's post made me realize that the Hellenic bit is just a convenient metaphor for a Westerner and really has no other relation to Hellenism other than the use of the name Eris. It's a distinct 20th century jokeosophy. The only relation that could be drawn from Greece is if Diogenes vacationed in China and then went bowling. I have another thought bouncing around in my head but it's not quite formed yet.
I don't think of Discordianism as a joke, or a philosophy about jokes.
I think of it as the thinking person's religion.
It is that, in my opinion. It's actually a quite cohesive religious system. It is, as I've said before, a complete and living philosophy.
The interesting thing about this anthropological definition of "religion" and of "shaman" is that it's very very simple, which in a way it has to be in order to be able to apply to a vast diversity of cultures. A religion is a shared system of explaining the relationships between the visible and the non-visible. Every religion has people who specialize in it (that's us) who loosely fall either into the category of "Priest" or of "Shaman", as previously defined.
I think my official title is something like "Nightmare Neighbor" or "Why We Can't Have Nice Things" or "That UnAmerican Traitorous Blaspheming Shitbag That Doesn't Invite Me To His Parties".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I meant more along the lines of that I had thought of it as a Hellenic parody of New Age and Neopaganism with more meat than meets the eye. Now though, Nigel's post made me realize that the Hellenic bit is just a convenient metaphor for a Westerner and really has no other relation to Hellenism other than the use of the name Eris. It's a distinct 20th century jokeosophy. The only relation that could be drawn from Greece is if Diogenes vacationed in China and then went bowling. I have another thought bouncing around in my head but it's not quite formed yet.
I don't think of Discordianism as a joke, or a philosophy about jokes.
I think of it as the thinking person's religion.
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke. Though it is worth noting that I consider it my primary religion, as much as it is one, nowadays than thinking of myself as being a Pagan who is also a Discordian. I'm more of a Discordian with intermittent Paganism to satisfy the whole having to die someday thing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:40:30 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of being a shaman. Probably because of some resistance to reframe the definition of shaman, which calls up an image of some dude dressed in animal skins tripping balls and playing with bones for the good of the tribe.
I, on the other hand, am tickled pink by suddenly having a new definition of "shaman" that provides me with so very many amusing opportunities.
I feel like someone just handed me a new toy.
A shiny, wonderful new toy.
And I can't wait to throw it down the staircase! :banana:
And both of these.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
?
I spent 20 minutes trying to find the book in question, and then another 20 minutes typing out the section before, for everyone to gloss over it, because, I dunno, I am PD's Personal Research Assistant or something.
And only after I point that out does everyone suddenly feel the need to jump up and address it, which I probably find more annoying than the original act of being ignored. It clearly wasn't important enough to be commented on until I said something, so the only conclusion I can come to is that this kind of thing is some form of pandering.
It's completely killed my desire to write up anything. And makes me wonder exactly how much time I'm wasting in Aneristic Delusions and Or Kill Me.
I like your writing. I just feel stupid saying what ever version of "I'm going to mull it over/chew on it a bit/roll it around in my head" as a placeholder, especially where I don't have a particularly good track record of responding to it later. Take it as a compliment on my part. You're way fucking smarter than me.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke.
It's even funnier when you think of it as useful philosophy with a totally straight face.
That is, at least, the reason I commented on it after you said something. I would have commented on my first read-through if I'd seen it, because it's directly relevant and based on a topic I am knowledgeable about and have opinions on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke.
It's even funnier when you think of it as useful philosophy with a totally straight face.
That's my favorite. Especially because it freaks the pinealists the fuck out.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke.
It's even funnier when you think of it as useful philosophy with a totally straight face.
That's my favorite. Especially because it freaks the pinealists the fuck out.
I think that's the reason why FSM and IPK annoy me. Aside being knock-offs of Sagan's invisible dragon, it doesn't really offer anything other than a way for atheists to kill a one-off joke.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke.
It's even funnier when you think of it as useful philosophy with a totally straight face.
That's my favorite. Especially because it freaks the pinealists the fuck out.
Yep.
Also, I tell blatant lies about Discordianism all the time, when people ask me about it. We are:
1. Out to destroy society.
2. An excuse for getting fucked up.
3. A secret society of do-gooders, and your last hope.
4. A secret society of evil-doers, in the pay of the Koch brothers.
5. A mystic society that is 3000 years old at least.
6. A collection of butthurt, frustrated ARTEEESTES that will SHOW YOU IGNORANT PHILISTINES A THING OR TWO!
7. A secret wing of the democratic party.
8. A secret wing of the republican party.
9. Communists/anarchists.
10. The love slaves of Angela Davis.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:58:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 24, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
I thought it a philosophy clothed as a joke.
It's even funnier when you think of it as useful philosophy with a totally straight face.
That's my favorite. Especially because it freaks the pinealists the fuck out.
Yep.
Also, I tell blatant lies about Discordianism all the time, when people ask me about it. We are:
1. Out to destroy society.
2. An excuse for getting fucked up.
3. A secret society of do-gooders, and your last hope.
4. A secret society of evil-doers, in the pay of the Koch brothers.
5. A mystic society that is 3000 years old at least.
6. A collection of butthurt, frustrated ARTEEESTES that will SHOW YOU IGNORANT PHILISTINES A THING OR TWO!
7. A secret wing of the democratic party.
8. A secret wing of the republican party.
9. Communists/anarchists.
10. The love slaves of Angela Davis.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 06:06:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on April 24, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
I think I'll keep this thread in mind, the next time I'm stupidly gripped by the desire to transcribe something of possible interest.
I thought the piece you posted was very interesting, Cain. I apologize that I did not comment on it earlier.
Ricketts' argument appears sound, though I do not know enough about the Native American traditions to comment on it more fully.
Rickett's argument appears to have been pulled directly out of his ass, without any particular knowledge of the cultures of origin for the stories he was attempting to make a religious analysis of by simply laying them on top of the dominant culture's worldview. Ricketts is a theologian, not an ethnographer.
To clarify what I meant:It appears sound, based on the premises forwarded, and, given that I have no cultural knowledge of these traditions, I cannot judge the accuracy of the claims being made.
Your counter point is well noted, Nigel, thank you for forwarding it.
Phox,
Cultural knowledge consists of Mediterranean cultures ~2000+ years ago. :lol:
Not criticizing you, Phox, just criticizing Ricketts. :)
Yeah, I didn't take it as a criticism; just looking over what I said and what was going through my head at the time, I had a nagging need to more clearly articulate my initial response to it, and your reply to my reply made me look at it again, and it started to bug me. :lol:
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Incidentally though, and somewhat seriously, I've seen the case be made that followers of all trickster-deities, which would include Eris, are actually anti-shamanic. I had this argument with WyldKat a long time ago, because she also went "Discordianism is Shamanism" (which I'm fairly sure was leading up to "and I am a Shaman", and then "therefore I am a Discordian", and finally "and I am not oppressing myself, so TCC does not hate Discordians").
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2012, 02:32:17 PM
so, what was exactly the case for followers of trickster deities being anti-shamanistic?
From Trickster Makes This World:
QuoteIn 1964, Mac Linscott Ricketts finished a doctoral thesis that is a remarkably wide-ranging survey of North American trickster tales. There and in later essays Ricketts has argued that the tales locate the trickster in opposition to the practice and beliefs of shamanism. To Ricketts way of thinking, humankind has two responses when faced with all that engenders awe and dread in this world: the way of the shaman (and the priests), which assumes a spiritual world, bows before it, and seeks to make alliances; and the way of the trickster (and the humanists), which recognizes no power beyond its own intelligence, and seeks to seize and subdue the unknown with wit and cunning. "The trickster...embodies [an] experience of Reality...in which humans feel themselves to be self-sufficient beings for whom the supernatural spirits are powers not to be worshipped, but ignored, to be overcome, or in the last analysis, mocked." The shaman enters the spirit world and works with it, but "the trickster is an outside...He has no friends in that other world...All that humans have gained from the unseen powers beyond-fire, fish, game, fresh water and so forth-have been obtained, by necessity, through trickery or theft..." In obtaining these goods, the trickster, unlike the shaman, "did not also obtain superhuman powers, or spiritual friendship...He seems to need no friends: he gets on very well by himself..."
To explore this idea, Ricketts shows how a number of trickster stories can be read as parodies of shamanism. In shamanic initiations, for example, spirits kill and resurrect the initiate, often placing something inside the resurrected body - a quartz crystal, for example - which the shaman can later call forth from his body during healing rituals. If someone in your group claims such powers, you may find wry humour in the stories which have Coyote, when he needs advice, calling forth (which much grunting) his own excrement. Likewise, dreams of flying are said to be premonitions of shamanic initiation, and the shaman in a trance can supposedly fly into the sky, into the underworld, into the deepest forest. With this in mind, it's hard not the hear the parodic tone in the almost universal stories of trickster trying to fly with the birds, only to fall ignominiously to earth. Trickster's failure implies that shamanic pretensions are daydreams at best, fakery at worst. "Humans were not made to fly...Trickster, like the human being, is an earth-bound creature, and his wish to fly (and to escape the human condition) is...a frivolous fancy."
Similarly, the "bungling host" stories may be not only about the instinctual ways of animals, as I argued in an earlier chapter, but about the shaman's claim to be able to acquire the power of other beings. Trickster fails to acquire powers because it flatly can't be done. "The trickster, in trying to get his food in the manner of the Kingfisher, for instance...is reaching for superhuman abilities. He is, in fact, attempting to transcend the human condition and live in a mode which is different from that which is proper for humans. Blundering efforts to do what animals do," Ricketts concludes, "may be viewed as mockery of shamans and all others who think they can get higher powers from animal spirits."
If the shaman in touch with higher spirits is the prophet of Native America, then trickster, his laughing shadow, is a prophet with a difference. Over and over the stories call attention to the actual constraints of human life: humans can't fly like birds; the dead do not return. These are a species of "eternal truth", but pointing them out draws attention to this world, not another. It is a revelation of fleshy bodies, not heavenly bodies. Beyond this, where parody is able to strip the things it mocks of their charm, it opens up spaces in which something new might happen. It is true when trickster breaks the rules we see the rules more clearly, but we also get a glimpse of everything the rules exclude. Commenting on Navajo stories, Barre Toelken writes: "Coyote functions in the oral literature as a symbol of that chaotic Everything with which man's rituals have created an order for survival." Mocking the rituals opens the door for the return of that chaotic Everything. From the shaman's point of view, the rules that trickster breaks articulate the ideal world, but from trickster's vantage point, if we think the ideal os real we are seriously mistaken and won't see half of what is right in front of us. We may wish our bodies produced quartz crystals, but the bowels regularly tell another story.
Regardless of whether Rickett was talking out his ass on this subject, I found it profoundly interesting, if only as a way to dissect a white man's perspective looking from the outside with ignorance. I'm adding this to my list of things to research during the summer.
Additionally, when I saw this I was on my way out the door to class and didn't have the time to comment on Cain's contribution.
I agree, I just read it and found it REALLY interesting, thanks for writing it up, Cain!
Quote from: NigelThere are many different trickster characters, and their roles vary widely, although they have certain commonalities (if you are familiar with stories from different nations, you will find that there is an ass-ton of overlap, with Iktomi, Coyote, and We-Gyet all performing the same roles in some of the same stories). However, Ricketts' attempt to force them into a mold of Western religious logic is asinine.
One thing I don't understand, though, is there are trickster stories
all over the world. There's Anansi from African folk tales, Loki from the Norse pantheon, Eris from the Greeks, and even in European folk tales Reinaert de Vos (a ruthless trickster fox).
Ricketts doesn't mention these either (nor do all of them fit particularly well as anti-shamans), but it's also not that Native Americans have the final authority on all things trickster.
It was a good counterpoint to the discussion, thanks Cain.
I like what I'm seeing here :evil:.
I think the main failing in Rickett's presentation is he sets the trickster up as a dualistic opposite of the Shaman, whereas I see the Trickster figure as more of a character who will use shamanic and anti-shamaic techniques to escape from the false-duality. I think Rickett was just writing from the default dualistic western perspective (which doesn't line up 100% with how tricksters behaved in the first nation's stories or elsewhere... yeah, coyote tried to fly and failed, but Raven is just as much of a trickster in the NW as Coyote was... etc).
The fact that this "Escaping the dualisms by synthesizing them" is a deep undercurrent in Discordian thought also points towards the early animist beliefs, where spirit was not seperate from flesh, and killing the bear to feed your tribe meant killing the Bear-God to feed your tribe.
I see that in Cram's writing on memes (they are not separate from "the network", i.e., us... but it is useful to interface with them as if they were seperate sometimes), Dok's advice about the HERE AND NOW, and Cain's synthesis of geo-politics and memetics.
In short, anti-shamans tend to make the best shamans, we can deal with the visible and the non-visible and not fall into the trap of thinking they are "separate".
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 24, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
CAIN
is most likely closer with the trickster analogy, in describing a fair bulk of spags. i would imagine that pd is a fairly mixed bag though too. tricksters get over identified and generally, the good which tricksters account for is often overlooked.shaman characters have a "cruel gardener" side as well and the trickster is not necessarily nefarious at all. shaman the shaman and trickster are after all, addressing common concerns.
IT'S
like spags and libertarians.
This is an interesting post which I'd overlooked, but yes, the "creative chaos" element of the trickster is very important and often overlooked. For example, in many Trickster stories, Trickster brings us technological innovation, often as the result of a destructive mistake.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 11:26:05 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 24, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
CAIN
is most likely closer with the trickster analogy, in describing a fair bulk of spags. i would imagine that pd is a fairly mixed bag though too. tricksters get over identified and generally, the good which tricksters account for is often overlooked.shaman characters have a "cruel gardener" side as well and the trickster is not necessarily nefarious at all. shaman the shaman and trickster are after all, addressing common concerns.
IT'S
like spags and libertarians.
This is an interesting post which I'd overlooked, but yes, the "creative chaos" element of the trickster is very important and often overlooked. For example, in many Trickster stories, Trickster brings us technological innovation, often as the result of a destructive mistake.
WHAT
ever
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 24, 2012, 11:50:53 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 11:26:05 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on April 24, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
CAIN
is most likely closer with the trickster analogy, in describing a fair bulk of spags. i would imagine that pd is a fairly mixed bag though too. tricksters get over identified and generally, the good which tricksters account for is often overlooked.shaman characters have a "cruel gardener" side as well and the trickster is not necessarily nefarious at all. shaman the shaman and trickster are after all, addressing common concerns.
IT'S
like spags and libertarians.
This is an interesting post which I'd overlooked, but yes, the "creative chaos" element of the trickster is very important and often overlooked. For example, in many Trickster stories, Trickster brings us technological innovation, often as the result of a destructive mistake.
WHAT
ever
SHUT UP, YOU.
Quote from: Telarus on April 24, 2012, 11:16:31 PM
It was a good counterpoint to the discussion, thanks Cain.
I like what I'm seeing here :evil:.
I think the main failing in Rickett's presentation is he sets the trickster up as a dualistic opposite of the Shaman, whereas I see the Trickster figure as more of a character who will use shamanic and anti-shamaic techniques to escape from the false-duality. I think Rickett was just writing from the default dualistic western perspective (which doesn't line up 100% with how tricksters behaved in the first nation's stories or elsewhere... yeah, coyote tried to fly and failed, but Raven is just as much of a trickster in the NW as Coyote was... etc).
The fact that this "Escaping the dualisms by synthesizing them" is a deep undercurrent in Discordian thought also points towards the early animist beliefs, where spirit was not seperate from flesh, and killing the bear to feed your tribe meant killing the Bear-God to feed your tribe.
I see that in Cram's writing on memes (they are not separate from "the network", i.e., us... but it is useful to interface with them as if they were seperate sometimes), Dok's advice about the HERE AND NOW, and Cain's synthesis of geo-politics and memetics.
In short, anti-shamans tend to make the best shamans, we can deal with the visible and the non-visible and not fall into the trap of thinking they are "separate".
Great post, Telarus. I'm not very knowledgeable about trickster characters in any tradition so I haven't had much to say on the topic, but this makes a lot of sense and is an interesting take on it.
At the very least, it jives with my understanding of Discordian themes, though I would say PD.com does seem to tend towards the anti-shamanic side of things.