Former atheist speaks out...

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert, my background education is certainly different from yours. I was not raised in and modern Christian church and don't know about it from that angle. As I have said before, my impression of David and the QRS is that their knowledge is very one-sided, very limited, but you could also describe it positively as focused in the domain that concerns them. For example in David's recent post he refers to all of religion as being cartoon-like, and with this dismisses it. It seems to me that someone with even a basic liberal arts educational background could discover a great deal of value in the religious traditions. If one is going to involve oneself in a criticism of Christianity, as for example average who throws the whole thing aside (it seems that way) without understanding how deeply it is interwoven into the culture, I think one has to really know something about those traditions, or at least make some sort of effort. And the way I know about those traditions is primarily through literature. I don't think I have disguised that or misrepresented myself.

I think a critical approach to Christianity (and religion) should and can be much more subtle, more penetrating even. It would have a great deal more currency and meaning, and more force as a criticism than simply to dismiss it all as 'cartoonish' while one holds up a absolutist mental position as an acme of life experience. I definitely never said one shouldn't question any part of Christianity or religion, but I think it has to be done fairly, intelligently, thoughtfully. It seems to me that Isaac for example levels a critique against Kierkegaard that has little relevancy because there is not really an understanding of Kierkegaard, his context, or the basic tenets of Christianity. What value then is the criticism? I think it would generally be dismissed and certainly so in literary circles. Yet it is almost across the board that this forum approaches ideas generally. Y'all are supposed to be so smart, so thoughtful and so 'wise'. Where the fuck, Diebert, is this wisdom draining out? It don't arrive... ;-)

David seems to come at his criticism from a similar (in kind not in quantity) position, and it doesn't do service to the criticism. David at least makes some effort. Kevin? It's little more than the parsing of words.

(I will admit to you Diebert that it is sort of delicious to listen to classical fools---literally classical fools---who don't seem much more than over-cerebral arrogant youngsters, whose familiarity with ideas in a wide-ranging sense seems so limited, and so defective, who have set themselves a mission of converting the whole world through an almost ridiculous missionizing website built on the gravestone of Weininger---it is delicious in its way to slap them around and have it be 100% okay because they are 'ego-less', and that the whole purpose of this dialectic is to dispel ignorance.)
_____________________________________________

Jason, maybe what you can do is just work through your questions, as you seem to be doing, and then describe your conclusions?

"How exactly could you doubt that you are experiencing "red" when you look at a rose? I don't understand how you could think that that's possible. Can you explain it further?"

It is just a very obvious leading question, Jason. What do you want the answer to be? Your conclusion about what this means is more important than what I'd say about it.

[Jason]

Jason, maybe what you can do is just work through your questions, as you seem to be doing, and then describe your conclusions?

I already have my conclusions, but that's not the point. I specifically presented the questions and statements to you. I want to know what you think, what your response is. This is a place for discussion, and sharing of ideas, and for challenging oneself and others, and that is exactly what I am attempting to do. I put considerable thought and effort into every part of my last post to you, and I would very much like for you to respond to the points I made in it.

Jason: How exactly could you doubt that you are experiencing "red" when you look at a rose? I don't understand how you could think that that's possible. Can you explain it further?

Alex Jacob: It is just a very obvious leading question, Jason. What do you want the answer to be? Your conclusion about what this means is more important than what I'd say about it.

It's a very straightforward and honest question Alex, answer it as is true for you - I'm not twisting your arm. I honestly want to know what your take on this issue is. I cannot understand how you could take the position you have, so show me why it is or might be a valid one. I'm ready to listen, I'm ready to learn.

[Tomas]

.



-aaron777-
Hello all,

-tomas-
Yo man, what's happening?




-Forked Tongue-
I was once a "very ardent" atheist -

-tomas-
Cool, I was once a "luke warm" atheist ;-)




-Forked Tongue confesses-
I frequented these boards many years ago.

-tomas-
Who were you in that manifestation?




-Forked Tongue implies-
I used to be of the same mind as many of you,

-tomas-
Okay, the fog is beginning to lift, you were the tempting spirit who tried to convince me that I was destined for greatness!




-Forked Tongue fingers-
particularly Kevin Solway.

-tomas agrees-
Yeah, he's a shady one, alright... He was the one who used to stand out on Worldly Matters, before the truly evil twin spirits, David Quinn and Daniel Rowden, shut down Worldly with a few simple keystrokes. Poor Kevin, he should've been dubbed with a Biblical (Pagan) name like King Solomon Solway - stead of itsy-bitsy "kevin". No wonder the devil got to Daniel and David and shut down the wonderful discourse on Worldly Matters... but we have the watered-down (baptismal by fire) version on Genius Forum with David and Daniel leading the way to the glorious future. (good thing they shed their reliance on Kevin, that good-for-nothing *#@&!)




-Forked Tongue spreads his arms-
Like many of you, the concept of "sin" was a nuisance to me

-tomas-
You betcha, there is sin and then there is "real sin" - the alleyway kind that does not dare be seen in the bright sunlight of conceptual nothingness!




-Forked Tongue-
and the Christ of the cross nothing more than a fairytale.

-tomas-
Again, much like Kevin foretold all those years ago... but his disciples (Daniel, David) betrayed him to the anti-christ of their times and spit the vinegar out!




-Forked Tongue goes on-
As my descent into nihilism progressed -- "as I went deeper and deeper into the toilet bowl of rebellion" -- something happened.

-tomas-
Let me guess, you figured out the water in a toilet bowl flushes counter-clockwise when in the other hemisphere?




-Forked Tongue awakens from golden slumber-
I became aware of my sin, my seperateness from God and my utter lostness.

-tomas-
Hmmm, started reading more of Daniel Rowden's and David Quinn's writings?




-Forked Tongue admits-
I began to lose my faith in my "no such thing as sin" and "I'm not evil" doctrine.

-tomas-
Well, you know what that means, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". You'll have to do some penance and spend a few years in Purgatory...




-Forked Tongue preaches-
When I put my trust in Jesus Christ and repented of my godlessness - the weight of my guilt was removed... and I was born again; I experienced a "newness of life". All this that these Christians keep talking about is "the Absolute" truth.

-tomas-
Good Boy! ... this will shave a few months off your Purgatory Sentence ... you will now be incarcerated for only 10,000 years :-)




-Forked Tongue gushes-
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life... without Him we will all perish.

-tomas-
"We"? - Speak for yourself there, Buster. Last time I checked the Bible, it's more a like a "narrow path" built for one, not the "wide road" you are hiking on.




-Forked Tongue-
I know you probably think I'm some deluded heckler who's slipped of into a culturally induced religious psychoses -

-tomas-
Perhaps a few too many communal wafers and some spiked-up wine... you really into that voodoo-cannibal body-and-blood relic worship?




-Forked Tongue-
but I probably wouldn't have posted anything on this site unless I had already read everything on Kevin's website at least 50 times.

-tomas-
50 times? Chump change, dude. I can quote word-for-word the writings of the most-merciful Kevin Solway!




-Forked Tongue-
I used to be virulently anti-christian... I saw Christianity as a plague of humanity and there was no way I was going to assent to it. I was like Fredrick Nietzsche on steroids.

-tomas-
So you're the loser who was spray-painting those swastikas around town...




-Forked Tongue-
So what changed me? Jesus Christ. I'm sure there are others on this board who can attest to what I'm talking about...

-tomas-
The usual suspects will surface...




Regards,
aaron

-tomas-
Can I get an Amen?




.

[Alex Jacob]

"How exactly could you doubt that you are experiencing "red" when you look at a rose? I don't understand how you could think that that's possible. Can you explain it further?"

I don't doubt that what I see is a red rose.

But if I take into consideration that what is there in front of me---some inexplicable energy that somehow has taken that form---is not anywhere near as 'real' (solid) as I perceive it to be, and that the apparatus of my perception is made of the same 'stuff' (inexplicable energy that has taken certain forms), and that no matter what I think I see it is not really being seen, but rather it is an immense deconstruction and reconstruction through physiological apparatus, an interpretation: from that perspective, I am told, one could doubt 'the redness of a red rose'.

And your conclusions are very much the point, I don't think it is wise to forget that, since you are the one framing the question. Our perception is such I think, that we are very aware, though not always consciously, of what sort of frame is presented to us, and so often we act accordingly.

I can also balance a ball on my nose, would you like to see?

[Jason]

How exactly could you doubt that you are experiencing "red" when you look at a rose? I don't understand how you could think that that's possible. Can you explain it further?

I don't doubt that what I see is a red rose.

Well then we might be in agreement after all.

But if I take into consideration that what is there in front of me---some inexplicable energy that somehow has taken that form---is not anywhere near as 'real' (solid) as I perceive it to be, and that the apparatus of my perception is made of the same 'stuff' (inexplicable energy that has taken certain forms), and that no matter what I think I see it is not really being seen, but rather it is an immense deconstruction and reconstruction through physiological apparatus, an interpretation: from that perspective, I am told, one could doubt 'the redness of a red rose'.

I assume you are referring to an early 21st century scientific explanation of a red rose, as matter and energy, are you? Science is not up to the task of providing certainties, are you aware of that? The theories around now are liable to change in the future, they are provisional. Building foundations on them is inadvisable for those who seek truth.

The "red" I was referring to is the purely subjective experience of the sensation "red." Do you think that such purely subjective experiences are doubtable?

I would argue that what is really in front of you is the experience of the sensation "red." The idea that it is energy etc in front of you is just that - an idea. It is an intellectual overlay based on theory, and it distances you from the actual, certain and subjective brute reality of the situation.

And your conclusions are very much the point, I don't think it is wise to forget that, since you are the one framing the question. Our perception is such I think, that we are very aware, though not always consciously, of what sort of frame is presented to us, and so often we act accordingly.

I think that trying to understand and be aware of psychology, both one's own and other's, is a deeply important and necessary part of any serious truth-oriented philosophy.

I can also balance a ball on my nose, would you like to see?

Why did you post that?

[Cory Duchesne]

Brokenhead,

To trust that a supernatural entity beyond this world makes everything ok is a crude religious sentiment.

Yes. And this observation is childish. No person with an ounce of sense believes that "everything" can be made ok, as if by a magic wave of the hand.

Well what does having faith in Jesus mean to you? I mean, what does it do for you?

[David Quinn]

For example in David's recent post he refers to all of religion as being cartoon-like, and with this dismisses it.

I didn't say that, and even spent some effort explaining why I think religion can indeed transcend its cartoon nature in some instances.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As I have said before, my impression of David and the QRS is that their knowledge is very one-sided, very limited, but you could also describe it positively as focused in the domain that concerns them. For example in David's recent post he refers to all of religion as being cartoon-like, and with this dismisses it.

But can you see that from the domain, the context he makes that remark in that it's not important if Christianity is much more than the liturgy or the specific traditions? I'm not gonna do the interpretations for him but when I read something like that I see it in context of his view about people living in a delusion, a conceived false heaven and earth. Whatever they do with some religion is bound to turn into cartoon, shadow play, iconography and the whole linguistic issue of symbols that come with it.

These 'cartoons' or in a broader sense this illustrative reality might be seen as beautiful manifestations of (human) nature, of causality, even as clues, like a puzzle spread out for those who are driven to search deeper. A religion as Christianity cannot be anything else than one peak of this false illustrative reality (a creation of the Gnostic Demiurge) and for most it functions not as path to insight but as path to recognize, celebrate ones life, culture, background - to live 'the dream' a bit further. How wonderful!

This is where I'd see David's remark, to interpret religion as the majority is interpreting it, that is, not as vehicle towards truth, not as a narrow road. One can only suspect the teachings are founded on the echoes of footsteps, the footprints, of where wise men walked before. There's no scientific path that leads to conclusions like this and at times the suspicion might be even unfounded. Nevertheless it might have its use.

It seems to me that someone with even a basic liberal arts educational background could discover a great deal of value in the religious traditions.

It's easy to see why that is, when reading what I wrote earlier above. Most of it is sacred art to begin with!

And the way I know about those traditions is primarily through literature. I don't think I have disguised that or misrepresented myself.

Your mastering of the literature is impressive and inspiring at times. But there's a limitation there as well. It would be like knowing about a tropical island through brochures and political pamphlets only, it's skewed like the account of an uneducated islander might be as well of course, in the eyes of the encyclopedian Eye.

I think a critical approach to Christianity (and religion) should and can be much more subtle, more penetrating even.

While it could and should be in any other context, such approach would not be very conductive for enlightenment teachings that are fundamentally non-intellectual in nature. It might add another layer, another distraction on top of our minds. It would probably be more promising to be a foam-at-the-mouth believer, when penetration of the heart is the goal.

Y'all are supposed to be so smart, so thoughtful and so 'wise'. Where the fuck, Diebert, is this wisdom draining out? It don't arrive... ;-)

I don't know, but I don't think being smart has anything to do with it. Blessed are the poor in spirit ;-)

(I will admit to you Diebert that it is sort of delicious to listen to classical fools---literally classical fools---who don't seem much more than over-cerebral arrogant youngsters, whose familiarity with ideas in a wide-ranging sense seems so limited, and so defective, who have set themselves a mission of converting the whole world through an almost ridiculous missionizing website built on the gravestone of Weininger---it is delicious in its way to slap them around and have it be 100% okay because they are 'ego-less', and that the whole purpose of this dialectic is to dispel ignorance.)

Yeah, you told that before, and before, and it's quite clearly you find delight in it even without you stressing it. But the ones who laugh last and loudest, as a figure of speech, are the missionaries you talk about, as they do not intend to have unlimited wide-reaching ideas running around aimlessly. The whole point is limitation and perhaps foolishness, to dare even to believe the greatest treasures are so counter-intellectual, so above and beyond the limitations of mind. First however we need to know those limitations, weeding out the delusions that rule feelings and thoughts.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote:

"...but when I read something like that I see it in context of his view about people living in a delusion, a conceived false heaven and earth. Whatever they do with some religion is bound to turn into cartoon, shadow play, iconography and the whole linguistic issue of symbols that come with it."

I also read it in the same way, in fact. And if you start with that premise then everything you look at is going to be just another level of false representation. It is neoplatonism on steroids. It is a paranoid appreciation of reality and it is a strange way to exist in relation to the world. As we have seen in other context (the letters, the Hare Krishna girl who shifts into a demonic figure) it is a strangely dark view of the world, and there is hardly a drop of beauty in it, nor grace, and if it is true that God is the sum total of all that is, and we are also that sum total, this essential viewpoint, this dictatorial, guiding viewpoint, would never be able to see the redeeming features in liturgy or in religious symbols. At the same time the viewpoint is rampantly suspicious of any part of the living flesh of man, and for that body there is no redemption.

You don't really need to try to convince me of the 'narrow road' of the QRS path, I do understand it. As I mentioned in other areas I am likely more interested in the social Christian perspective of life, which I see as being, if you will permit me, more Jewish, and in that sense closer to the Prophetic aims.

The best manifestation of good, solid Catholicism, as I have seen it, is a religious, human spirit that unites people in good-will, awakens in them a recognition of the 'sacredness' of life, inspires them to take this optimistic, practical well-wishing into the world with them. 'Christ not only conquered death but conquered human solitude' (Francois Mauriac). You can tell me that David and Kevin locked themselves down in the basement for 15 long, terrible years and utterly destroyed their egos, but I think I would be far more moved if they (and any of us) had brought the Holy Cure to some of those living in the depths of the hells of solitude. This may be the core, unbridgeable gap in this dialectic: a fundamentally different view of 'the world' and a very different understanding of ethical activity in the world.

Because I have that perspective, and I 'privilege' it over that of ego-sacrifice and isolation (from the world, from life) it is quite natural that I take issue with the QRS-tian beliefs.

"But there's a limitation there as well. It would be like knowing about a tropical island through brochures and political pamphlets only, it's skewed like the account of an uneducated islander might be as well of course, in the eyes of the encyclopedian Eye."

Again I see it differently. Y'all seem to place literature (where philosophy meets real life, where philosophy lives and breathes) and art in this secondary position, or like the videos David watched while holed up in necessary philosophical isolation with only his letter writing pen and a 50 lb bag of potatoes: a frivolous pastime.

With a more connected spirituality literature can be a way to connect to and interrelate with the world, and that is why, I suppose, they don't like it and have no place for it.

Recognizing 'the greatest treasure' is an almost proverbially challenging pursuit. Our own soul tantalizes us with that question. Who do you think really recognizes and cares for 'the greatest treasure'? I certainly am aware that some yogis talk of divine knowledge as the treasure of all treasures, and I have at least seen sideways into that view, but there is another view that places life and people at the center as treasured, and this changes the whole dynamic.

One can live and die in very different sorts of service...

The final point is that, as I have read it, the QRS-tian trip is totally bound to words, and the intellect. I do not at all see how you could describe it as 'non-intellectual' in nature.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is neoplatonism on steroids. It is a paranoid appreciation of reality and it is a strange way to exist in relation to the world. As we have seen in other context (the letters, the Hare Krishna girl who shifts into a demonic figure) it is a strangely dark view of the world, and there is hardly a drop of beauty in it, nor grace, and if it is true that God is the sum total of all that is, and we are also that sum total, this essential viewpoint, this dictatorial, guiding viewpoint, would never be able to see the redeeming features in liturgy or in religious symbols.

It's probably true it's close to neo-platonism, mainly being a revival of platonism, just like Christianity could be seen as revival of Judaism. The old stream goes into decadent mode and the improved version carries the torch.

Personally I don't see a "strangely dark view of the world" in their writings and if so, that's the context of the letters, the 'forming years'. Or as you spotted before, a form of the mystic dark night. I"m not sure you can transpose that stage on their orientation now. But if you have examples, please point it out.

At the same time the viewpoint is rampantly suspicious of any part of the living flesh of man, and for that body there is no redemption.

Nonsense, you imply here flocking the back with whips. Which part of the body would you like to redeem then?

You don't really need to try to convince me of the 'narrow road' of the QRS path, I do understand it. As I mentioned in other areas I am likely more interested in the social Christian perspective of life, which I see as being, if you will permit me, more Jewish, and in that sense closer to the Prophetic aims.

Fair enough, but it seems like a whole different planet to me. It's like hooking up a sailor with a ballet dancer.

The best manifestation of good, solid Catholicism, as I have seen it, is a religious, human spirit that unites people in good-will, awakens in them a recognition of the 'sacredness' of life, inspires them to take this optimistic, practical well-wishing into the world with them. 'Christ not only conquered death but conquered human solitude' (Francois Mauriac).

You could just as well told me Hitler really was all about improving the lives of people in Europe.

This may be the core, unbridgeable gap in this dialectic: a fundamentally different view of 'the world' and a very different understanding of ethical activity in the world.

That might be, but I've no problem seeing their view, without the basement, without any lack in my childhood and adolescence of art, beauty, companionship, faith and so on. The only thing I share with them is this desire to know, relentless rejection of what's self-conflicting, what's lie, even when it means to accept the world works pretty well through the lie.

With a more connected spirituality literature can be a way to connect to and interrelate with the world, and that is why, I suppose, they don't like it and have no place for it.

Again your magical word: 'connected'. I've no idea what you mean by it, apart from literature born out of a movement, written by people active in some social mesh.

The final point is that, as I have read it, the QRS-tian trip is totally bound to words, and the intellect. I do not at all see how you could describe it as 'non-intellectual' in nature.

Good point and it's certainly a danger for those entering the arena unprepaired. But it's not only the QRS-tian trip that is bound to words, concepts and certain hard-to-pinpoint feelings. The message here at least in my eyes is that we're all bound that way and the road we're walking on toward liberation could contain many individual non-intellectual steps but at some point one has to address the content of ones thought: there our basic orientation is hardened into a structure that isn't just undone by some magical dance steps.

[Alex Jacob]

If you look at a pretty girl, and then she shifts and morphs into a demon, it is fair to say your vision of things is darkened. True, Kevin's descriptions of the folk festival were not so much 'dark' as condemning of superficial attitudes in people, yet the general view of things is rather dark. I happen to share the view, so try to understand what I am getting at. I look at the 'world', more often when it comes through the TeeVee (which I rarely watch except last night at the airport, it was NatGeo and so many programs had to do with prisons and police activity, it was weird).

When I mentioned the 'body' I mean that they are 'unfriendly' to the 'body' of man: everything about man except the intellect, and just about everything about the way mankind is. I asked about 'redemption' in the sense of what path to such repemption do their ideas offer. Though they may not actively 'flog' themselves, in some sense they are floggers. They are not 'celebrators' of life, you know, like bright little bubbly sunflowers of human joy.

But after watching TeeVee for an hour last night, I see that Satan rules, it is all hopeless, all causes are lost...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you look at a pretty girl, and then she shifts and morphs into a demon, it is fair to say your vision of things is darkened.

No, it seems contrasted in a Taoist sense. It's a more accurate picture - it still remains a 'pretty' girl, actually but for seeing the shadows one needs first more light, not darkness

When I mentioned the 'body' I mean that they are 'unfriendly' to the 'body' of man: everything about man except the intellect, and just about everything about the way mankind is.

But they're not too friendly to the intellect either as you yourself has pointed out too many times. From a more holistic view one treats 'everything' properly, that is: in proportion - the way one thinks, feels and lives a life.

They are not 'celebrators' of life, you know, like bright little bubbly sunflowers of human joy.

But they do appear to be rather care-free though. Just my impression, what does one really know but oneself?

But after watching TeeVee for an hour last night, I see that Satan rules, it is all hopeless, all causes are lost...

I noticed the cops and crime shows too. Fear rules and control becomes religion.

[brokenhead]

Brokenhead,

To trust that a supernatural entity beyond this world makes everything ok is a crude religious sentiment.

Yes. And this observation is childish. No person with an ounce of sense believes that "everything" can be made ok, as if by a magic wave of the hand.

Well what does having faith in Jesus mean to you? I mean, what does it do for you?

You must have a little imagination here, Cory. You can't be asking seriously "If it's not magic, then what can it possibly be?" Think of it along these lines: when you reach one of life's impasses, you can sit there and say why me? It would be magic if you could wave your hand and the impasse disappeared. But you are aware that another person would not necessarily view the situation as an impasse. Prayer can change you, not just the situation. It can transform you into a person who is not stopped dead in his tracks, into someone who can change a disadvantage into an advantage, while retaining your selfhood, who can grow on the spot. This is just an example. The results are as varied as the reasons you do it. Before you put this line of reasoning down, remember that last sentence.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert, if we were playing a chess game, we'd end up evey time just two kings left on the board, moving endlessly. The only way either would win is if, somehow, by accident? one of us backed into the corner. It would be either suicide or chivalry.

;-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, if we were playing a chess game, we'd end up evey time just two kings left on the board, moving endlessly. The only way either would win is if, somehow, by accident? one of us backed into the corner. It would be either suicide or chivalry.

The real goal of chess is not to win, my friend, it's to promote the pawns. Both kings have lost on the board you describe, having it let come so far. Such a stale end.

[brokenhead]

Well what does having faith in Jesus mean to you? I mean, what does it do for you?

But of course you can answer that question for yourself by trying it.

[Kevin Solway]

But of course you can answer that question for yourself by trying it.

That's like saying you can discover the effects of crack cocaine by trying it for a few months, or you can discover the pleasure of mass murder by trying it for a few years.

[Alex Jacob]

From my perspective, it is always a curious endeavor talking to people who don't have a 'spiritual' sense of things, and who struggle over the whole idea of 'faith'. The rudiments of all religion (sorry to bore y'all) is shamanism, which is a magical-practical relationship to life in this created world. Though the specifics of each shamanism tradition differs from region to region there is a basic, structural pattern, and though modern religions are not shamanic traditions, still it is shamanism that provides the original pattern. Much can be gained from understanding that pattern.

First, the shaman is a practical person, and any other stance or platform doesn't make any sense. Life's issues and problems, existence, is the domain of operation and concern. Hunting, planting, healing, psychological social cohesion, interpretation.

A shaman has tutelary spirits and guides, and these 'spirits' in most cases of bona fide initiation are not sought, in fact, but rather seek out the shaman. The 'spiritual process' is one of being overcome by these spirits, reduced to a sort of powerlessness where one's only recourse is to rely wholly on the spiritual entity. In many cases, in dreams and visions, the shaman is devoured and otherwise killed by the tutelary spirit, and strangely enough, reconstructed, reanimated. The reconstructed shaman is then provided with clues and techniques of curation, divination, trance, and is 'forced' into his occupation, which is full-time. It is an entire life-path.

The issue of 'faith', then, is one of knowledge of one's tutelary spirit, and a following of the guidelines and techniques provided (through dream and vision) about the correct way to live, the best way to heal others, correct interpretation of events through a divination system, as well as the capacity to make 'psychic voyages' into a psycho-spiritual underworld (sometimes overworld) for healing and divination purposes. An important element of the shamanic paradigm is that the patient brings his ailment to the shaman and instead of it being treated as such, the nature of shamanic healing is that the ailment is taken on by the shaman. The shaman then works out the problem within his own being by submitting it to the tutelary spirit, and as a result the patient gets better.

If you consider the basic mythology of Christianity (birth, normal life, selection by the spirit, trials and tribulations, shamanic dismemberment and shamanic reconstruction---resurrection---and then a 'new life') you can easily spot the outline. People who undergo the Christian initiation usually come to it through a psychological crisis, when they enter into a pit of darkness where they are rendered powerless. There is no place to turn except to a complete reliance on Christ, who manifests through the dramatic spiritual process. All this happens on inner levels and not a great deal of it is 'rational', it all has to do with psychic or psychological potencies that really don't have much to do with the 'rational mind'. Although Christianity is a belief system with a rational platform (applied after the fact by Aquinas and the neo-platonists) it is at the core a post-shamanic path, based in very old and very potent solar myths that go back to Egypt and far beyond that to desert traditions, etc. I don't think you'd ever be able to locate the source, in fact, it is all very very old. To come in contact with those symbols is to come in contact with ancient mythologies and very old patterns of psychic processes.

This Christian God can completely function within a holistic, archetypal, magical attitude and experience of life, it is exceedingly versatile. The more that it becomes an inner, psychological and psychic process, the more it connects to mysticism, divination, omens, handling spirits both in oneself and others. In this case Christ becomes the 'guidance system'. The downside in that is that it can turn into an almost absurd superstitionism, and if it is inflected with psychological paranoia it can get very dark and very strange. It is part-and-parcel though of the social matrix and it is absurd to think it will go away.
__________________________________________________

All of this of course is talked about at great length in my correspondence course, and of course you'll get the 12 CDs, your own shamanic drum, some of my famous 'totem bones', all for the low, low price of $12,999.00!
___________________________________________________

Kevin, if you act now I'm going to let you have the whole program for only $3,999.00 only because just about everything goes over your head and it is embarrassing to watch.

[Iolaus]

From my perspective, it is always a curious endeavor talking to people who don't have a 'spiritual' sense of things, and who struggle over the whole idea of 'faith'. The rudiments of all religion (sorry to bore y'all) is shamanism, which is a magical-practical relationship to life in this created world.

A shaman has tutelary spirits and guides, and these 'spirits' in most cases of bona fide initiation are not sought, in fact, but rather seek out the shaman. The 'spiritual process' is one of being overcome by these spirits, reduced to a sort of powerlessness where one's only recourse is to rely wholly on the spiritual entity.

The issue of 'faith', then, is one of knowledge of one's tutelary spirit, and a following of the guidelines and techniques provided

AJ, it is impossible not to be a little bit in love with you.

[brokenhead]

But of course you can answer that question for yourself by trying it.

That's like saying you can discover the effects of crack cocaine by trying it for a few months, or you can discover the pleasure of mass murder by trying it for a few years.

Did this bit of nonsense just come from Kevin Solway? Your choice of analogies shows you are determined to be negative. Why on earth would you use an analogy that no one can empathise with? How does "mass murder" evoke "pleasure?"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

From my perspective, it is always a curious endeavor talking to people who don't have a 'spiritual' sense of things, and who struggle over the whole idea of 'faith'. The rudiments of all religion (sorry to bore y'all) is shamanism, which is a magical-practical relationship to life in this created world. Though the specifics of each shamanism tradition differs from region to region there is a basic, structural pattern, and though modern religions are not shamanic traditions, still it is shamanism that provides the original pattern. Much can be gained from understanding that pattern.

But no one is excluded from a 'magical-practical' relationship to life "in this created world".

All the shaman, or the religious person does, ideally, is becoming more conscious of that relationship. Sometimes it's used, sometimes abused to gain control, some advantage over the ones who are less conscious of their magical dealings.

As some Christians say: "It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God because He believes in you".

First, the shaman is a practical person, and any other stance or platform doesn't make any sense. Life's issues and problems, existence, is the domain of operation and concern. Hunting, planting, healing, psychological social cohesion, interpretation.

It's the human situation, not a particular shamanic one.

A shaman has tutelary spirits and guides, and these 'spirits' in most cases of bona fide initiation are not sought, in fact, but rather seek out the shaman.

Do you know where you're talking about? From a true shamanic perspective everyone is already dealing with spirits and guides, even if many would never see it that way. And it's just a way to see it, really.

An important element of the shamanic paradigm is that the patient brings his ailment to the shaman and instead of it being treated as such, the nature of shamanic healing is that the ailment is taken on by the shaman. The shaman then works out the problem within his own being by submitting it to the tutelary spirit, and as a result the patient gets better.

The true shaman knows himself and has a bag of psychological tricks to help someone if so inclined. Some might believe in their own mumbo jumbo. Do you?

psychic or psychological potencies that really don't have much to do with the 'rational mind'.

Just call them henids :)

Although Christianity is a belief system with a rational platform (applied after the fact by Aquinas and the neo-platonists) it is at the core a post-shamanic path, based in very old and very potent solar myths that go back to Egypt and far beyond that to desert traditions, etc. I don't think you'd ever be able to locate the source, in fact, it is all very very old. To come in contact with those symbols is to come in contact with ancient mythologies and very old patterns of psychic processes.

Only people get old. Myths survive because of their timeless content, or how accurately they describe the human mind, behavior and our consciousness ultimately. The way you describe it makes it sound very difficult and exclusive, like a smoke blowing Wizard of Oz.

Myths change, we have our own modern myths now that fulfill the exact same function.

This Christian God can completely function within a holistic, archetypal, magical attitude and experience of life, it is exceedingly versatile.

Any big concept is versatile enough to fit the requirements of the conceptualizer. It has this mirror effect but seeing the many reflections doesn't mean one now understands the workings of the mirror itself and can avoid the confusing intoxicating effect it can have.

[brokenhead]

Any big concept is versatile enough to fit the requirements of the conceptualizer. It has this mirror effect but seeing the many reflections doesn't mean one now understands the workings of the mirror itself and can avoid the confusing intoxicating effect it can have.

Diebert, this is interesting. This makes it sound as if the big concept is trying to protect itself via camouflage.

[samadhi]

Alex,

Thanks for that tutorial on shamanism. It's quite enlightening.

[David Quinn]

From my perspective, it is always a curious endeavor talking to people who don't have a 'spiritual' sense of things, and who struggle over the whole idea of 'faith'. The rudiments of all religion (sorry to bore y'all) is shamanism, which is a magical-practical relationship to life in this created world.

A shaman has tutelary spirits and guides, and these 'spirits' in most cases of bona fide initiation are not sought, in fact, but rather seek out the shaman. The 'spiritual process' is one of being overcome by these spirits, reduced to a sort of powerlessness where one's only recourse is to rely wholly on the spiritual entity.

The issue of 'faith', then, is one of knowledge of one's tutelary spirit, and a following of the guidelines and techniques provided

AJ, it is impossible not to be a little bit in love with you.

Yes, he's very much the ladies' man. I'm sure he loves entrancing young girl's minds with his yarns.

-

[Carl G]

Alex,

Thanks for that tutorial on shamanism. It's quite enlightening.

Sam, this is a serious forum and no place for sarcasm.