(...cont'd)
The Shaman
Someone here, don’t remember who, uttered the ‘shamanistic’ word with palpable irritation. There lies, I feel, a great rift between ancient cultures and the current obsession with ‘objectivist’ science. In trying to understand ancient cultures (for example, the Neolithic) I believe we are committing a great error by poo-pooing the inherent quality of experience that dictates our (and of course their) reactions and shapes our daily lives and tasks.
For example, take the recent discussion of “how was ‘energy’ more special to the ancients than our telephone lines to us?”
Good question. Yet such a statement is in direct opposition to this one:
“The arch of sky and mightiness of storms
Have moved the spirit within me,
Till I am carried away
Trembling with joy.”
Uvavnuk, Inuit shaman
In other words; stating that ‘energy is/was commonplace (non-sacred)’ is simply voicing a personal/experiential feeling, As does the above Inuit shaman quote. The *difference* is only experiential – the desire/feeling of the author to either exalt, or to degrade. We do not need to project this feeling on to others to find ‘evidence’. The only ‘proof’ that there is any wonder or power in these experiences is empirical by nature. Hard-nosed objectivism, on the other hand, must deny our place in the universe in order to satisfy it’s own criteria. Personally, I find such disciplines to be like black/white thought, neither I believe is absolute. How can one be? We invented both of them, beejeeezuz!
For instance, I *know* that many people do not hold wonder for the ability to communicate via satellite technology, or even cups and string. Neither do some wonder to watch a plant grow, or a moth pupate, etc. If using that dearth of feeling as ‘proof’ then becomes my adopted ethos - the wonder and empathy is so easily squashed flat. ‘Experience’ is always dictated by a state of mind or a belief, no matter how ‘objective’ the author claims to be. Fuzziness!
That, I feel, is not proof of anything other than the suggestibility of the human mind, and the fragility of the ego/self. We can foster a dearth of experience and ‘reality’ so as not to risk being ‘different’ or ‘fanciful.’ Empiricism is here hoisted by the petard of it’s unkind sibling;‘objectivism’. Pick over the bones of that argument, but I feel it boils down to pure psychology. ‘I” in the unIverse. Where am I?
“The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity ... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.” William Blake
Imagination is both a joy and a burden. We revolt at the singing poet, we embrace the carping cynic. We revolt at the critic, we embrace the music. Nothing is absolute! Imagination is divine, is it not? It is both freedom from knowledge and a giver of knowledge. A wonderful dichotomy, I reckon.
But to state plainly how I feel about this dowsing thing: I feel like being much less reactionary towards 'believers' as the whole thing resonates with at least some of my ‘intuiting’ along the way. I lose my way somewhere of late, so its good to read what you ALL are saying here, it gives me strength, joy, fires the spirit, and that lovin’ 'feelin'!'. We can all get lost in reverence of ideology and belief, whatever *it* is. But them big boots can mash the evidence!
“Earth’s crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God: But only he who sees takes off his shoes” Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
Long live TMA and all. A happy Yuletide to each and every one. Ramble on…
* The buzzard of morfe
PS If anyone still has the appetite for more scoff for thought, particularly on the subject of 'the ley line problem', then I just wolfed this essay down:
