What is a Shaman? �?Exploration
Thousands of years ago someone looked at his or her beliefs and reduced them to a few "self-evident" core beliefs about the world. A person's world view is the collection of all the logical (and illogical) extensions of these self-evident "facts". Mathematicians call this an "axiomatic system".
The vast majority of these axioms and extensions are taught to us: some by other peoplesome by the "world" we perceive around us. Some are our own ideas. The extensions are ideas about thingsnot "what is". But in every case we made a choice along the way to accept or reject them: we are responsible for who we are.
No one can prove their own axioms to anyone else
if the other person has a different set of axioms.
With an axiomatic systemby its very naturethe best that we can hope for is to make it internally consistent and internally complete. In practicethis only works for relatively limited systems. When we try to make inferences external to the systemwe are no longer in the realm of logic. This is a frequent problemsince it is difficult to notice when we are crossing the edge �?we then start questioning the intelligence of someone who disagrees with us.
Our beliefs are what we consider possible ("what is"). So all that is is our world view. This defines and limits our personal universe. We all can conceive a universe beyond what is�?but "only" with our imagination. We perceive what is possiblewith maybe a big or little miracle or two thrown in along the way. For some peoplemiracles happen because of our limited knowledge (delusion) �?Television would have seemed a miracle in the 19th century. Others see miracles as Divine Intervention. But in both cases they seem like miracles because they are beyond our ideas of what is normal.
The limits of our ideas about "what is" limit our perception on a very basic levelthose perceptions are within the scope of "what is". We perceive what is real and that realness allows us to deduce what is. It all goes around in a circle.
The problem with assuming these "self-evident" assumptions are THE TRUTH is thatif these axioms and ideas Determine our world viewour perceptions and observations will "prove" the underlying TRUTH.
In other wordsour axioms determine our world viewour world view determines our perceptions. If it looks like an elephantwalks like an elephant and feels like an elephant �?it must be an elephant!
If someone says"Butlook at the world out thereit looks real to me!" That person is starting to think like a shaman!
Shamanism isn't about trying to prove that rationality is unachievable. Or about proving that our beliefs determine and confirm our world �?that's unnecessary: the shaman acts as if there are no proofs. The problem for someone who has a Rational view of the world is to prove that what we experience isn't a result of our beliefs �?No "self-evident" truths allowed! �?You can't prove or disprove an assumption with another assumption. Inductive logic doesn't help here eithersince we are talking about the basis for perception itself. If you can't disprove thisyou can't logically say the world is such and such �?Or even say the world "out there" is out there.
If you decide to ignore this challenge and still masquerade as a Rational Manthat's okay with me �?if you are not ashamed of convincing yourself with voodoo.
But"You can't prove a negative." Who knows where this college freshman"law of logic" folklore originated. Certainly not from the logisticians. The "Law" is probably a confusion of the saying that you can't Inductively prove something doesn't exist because you can't prove you know everything about everything ("negative existential judgements"). If you can't prove a negativethen the negative logical statement "You can't prove a negative." is unprovable. So it's an illogical thing to say. (Actuallyevery negative statement entails a positiveso there are no purely negative logical statements.) AnywayI am not asking anyone to "prove a negative" �?I am only saying that no one can call himself a rationalist without disproving that our beliefs determine our world.
Why should you waste your time answering a trick question when all you have to do is look around and see that the world obviously doesn't work that way? You won't be the first person who has been able to reconcile incompatible beliefsshamans do it all the timehumans have a talent for itbut a shaman is aware of doing it.
Until a Rational Man has disproved thishe can't honestly call himself a rational man. He can't intellectually hold a rational view of the world. Each Thinking person Must ask "Am I being intellectually honest with myself or am I only blindly following the Doctrine of some unnamed Church of Rational Thought?" Anyone who takes a rational view of the world without disproving that our beliefs determine and confirm our world is living in a dream world.
A shaman says exactly that: the world is a dream.
Everyone has to take his or her axioms on FAITH �?that's all we have �?there are no other options �?even for people who dislike the word faith.
If our axioms are accepted on faiththere is no difference between "reasoned" faith and blind faith: there is only blind faith. If you prefer to call it reasonable faiththat's okaybut recognize it for what it is: an emotional preference. Many people say that blind faith is the only desirable kind. Others feel the very nature of man allows us to pick the true assumptions (the world out there is really there and we can know it) �?that may well bebut that is another assumption.
Although I am using the term "belief" in its intellectual sensea shaman often views reality as if it is the result of our beliefsexpectationsintentiondesirefocuslove and fear. I am not just presenting the idea that our beliefs "create our reality". I am simply implying that it is often effective to view the world as if it is the result of a few primary Causes. Practically all non-shamans focus on a bunch of Effects and call that "The World".
A shaman is not saying this is the way things are. He is only saying that some things are more important than what he believed yesterday or what he will believe tomorrow. In describing shaman beliefs I am not saying the world isn't what you think it is. A shaman friend of mine says it this way: "The world is what you think it is." All I am saying is we may have to admit the possibility that at some time in our life we may have accepted some of our ideas without sufficient proof (actuallyI am talking about all of our ideasof course.) A corollary might be: give people a break when we disagree with them �?they may not be stupidbut just working with different assumptions. Judgement is an emotional reactionnot a sign of superiority.
Of course this way of thinking can lead to belief in Nothing (nihilism). But the shaman doesn't travel down that path. The shaman says that things are actually very real for the person who believes they are real and that personal reality is not in any way inferior or less desirable or less "real" than some "Cosmic Truth". Is there such a thing as Cosmic Truth beyond personal truth? �?You are free to decidebased on what you emotionally feel comfortable with.
If something is real for uswe will think and experience and act in a way that reflects that reality. The shaman decides not to play the game of "What is Really going on?" since the answer depends on faith. He accepts reality based on his faith �?along with his power to change his mind when he feels like it.
If all this seems too simplistic to be trueconsider that it is simple and that the concept pertains to all "knowledge": no matter how complex our perceptions of reality and how those perceptions agree with our other perceptionswho can say that they are independent of our beliefs? Who can say what a perception actually is anywayindependent of other perceptions? Any definition of the concept of perception itself is based on a logical process starting from a set of assumptions.
If all this violates common sense and goes against the way you feel things are (faith)try kicking a box with a hidden brick inside and sayas Samuel Johnson once said"I disprove it thus!"
LobachevskiRiemannand other mathematicians demonstrated alternatives to Euclidean geometry and mathematically proved that there is no way to choose between them. It wasn't just geometry that was affected �?The problem goes beyond the question: Is Euclidean geometry true? Or is Riemann geometry true? It asks: If there is no way to choosehow can we know what is real?
Poincaré gave a shamanistic answer: the question has no meaning. All of our concepts are only convenient definitionssome more interesting than others. Einsteinin true shamanic fashionchose Riemann geometry to describe space�?and space complied.