Many animistic cultures have taboos regarding all sorts of ordinary practices. For example among the Minianka (at least those who have not converted to Islam) there are taboos about when and where certain instruments can be played, when and where people can speak freely or abstain from speaking, and where houses can or cannot be constructed, and all of these taboos are based upon that culture's animistic beliefs. Do you think that such taboos are universal? What about conflicting taboos across cultures? Is there anyway to adjudicate between conflicting animistic beliefs? For example some cultures have a taboo about playing instruments inside a house as this will supposedly attract unwanted spirits, but other people with animistic beliefs do not follow this taboo. How do we know who is right?
You may want to read parts of Essais by Michel de Montaigne specifically dedicated to subject of your inquiry. Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (February 28, 1533–September 13, 1592) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Montaigne
I see that this is a collection of essays. Can you recommend any in particular that deal with my question? After a quick glance it seems that Montaigne would say that experience must be the means of adjudication, but like I said I only glanced quickly over the texts that I found and further reading could prove that I have missed the mark. Seems interesting though, thank you for recommending these writings as I had never heard of them before.
I have read it a long time ago and don't have the book in my possession, but i clearly remember parts where he was contemplating what you inquire about under this thread. It was one of those books that when you read you sense are crystallizing and clarifying your own observations and thoughts on the same subject. You should read the whole thing or at least browse most parts of it (it deals with many subjects and gives very deep insight of social structures and individual mind). Another interesting read (reminds of Montaigne in some ways but not directly related to subject of your interest, rather about subject of human nature) are Maxims and Memoirs of La Rochefoucauld. If you enjoy reading Montaigne you will find maxims of La Rochefoucauld just as interesting.
I don't think it's a question of us knowing 'what is right'. Customs, underlying beleifs etc vary from culture to culture. 'Truth' is a flexible thing! Probably, taboos have their origin in quite practical matters.Sigmund Freud, in 'Totem and Taboo', for example, argued that marriage taboos between tribal clans have the function of prevent in breeding, and he makes quite a strong case for this view. Things like whether musical instruments should be played inside are very probably conditioned by wider beliefs. It's something like catholics who believe men should take hats off in churches. But I wonder how much survives today in terms of folk lore and superstition of ancient western taboos? Where I live for instance, my grandma told me that it's considered unlucky to bring lilac into the house - this seems to be a folk belief in several, but not all, english counties. I can't see any particular reason for that, but have to admit I don't ever bring it in...
There are way to many specific studies one can find in libraries , people probably spend a lifetime getting PhD's and professorships explaining these very matters, with minutae of data and hundreds of references to point. Then there are classics. In psychology Freud is one and then there is Jung, who has decidedly different views on many of these subjects. Then you have antropologists, i won't mention names but there are few really good ones, who study variations and differences among different groups of humans in different cultural and social settings. And then you have thinkers, such as Shopenhaur ,Nietzsche and others who grappled with questions of morality and motivation of human actions and beliefs in various cultures at various times. And then there is Montaigne. He is very simple and straight to the point in contemplating some of these questions. I think it's a good read ,for the beginner or not.
As you say - many different perspectives on all this. I mentioned Freud's book, because it struck me as interesting on the subject of taboo. But it's obviously only one line of thought. Generally I think Sigmund was perhaps a bit limited, but interesting nonetheless. I'm certainly not saying 'read Freud don't read Montaigne'. I'd encourage people to look at these questions from various points of view.
I don't think truth can be flexible. To me truth means to be in accordance with reality, therefor truth is not relative. If one culture believes that playing a drum inside will bring evil spirits, and another culture does not hold that belief then one of them is wrong.
That's an easy one and testable too. Have two groups of people, one without drums others with. Tell the group with drums to play a lot of it inside. Make sure other group doesn't. At the end of experiment see if any unusual things happened to the second group as opposed to first. Factor in probability factor of simple coincidents. There you will have results as to validity of belief.
I apply the same criteria in defining truth. Belief has no objective constituents in reality. None are right, they are substitutes for observation and can only contend with each other. This is the purpose of taboo, to distinguish us from them, not to define the nature of the world.
Well I don't think you'll get far with shamanism or animism if you want that type of black and white thinking. Seems to me that's more appropriate to things like organized religion or 19th century science.
If truth does not mean "in accordance with reality" then the word truth is meaningless. If I say that it is true that I was sitting in front of my computer when I wrote this, what makes that true is that those circumstances actually obtained in reality. In order for the statement "if you play your drum inside a house evil spirits will enter the house" to be true an evil spirit must actually enter the house when you play your drum. One and the same occurrence cannot have truly happened and truly not happened. Anyone who says that it is not true that I was sitting in front of my computer when I wrote this is factually wrong. Certainly the cultures that have a taboo against playing the drum inside would say that it is true for all people that playing the drum inside will attract evil spirits.
you fail to recognize the fact that belief shapes reality. in any authentic shamanic tradition, it is well known that intent is one of the more powerful forces we are able to work with. be it conciously (will) or unconciously (in the form of a belief or fear). reality is not somthing that is consistant with everybody and everything.
Is that a system for the way of living it out, or the analysis of particular meditations in the course of Experience?
both actually (if i understand you question correctly) harnessing intention is largely the point of any ritual
So we're working with the sun's day to day cycles, and without the sun in a rhythmic detached Tai Chi for one and the same individual; but if we write all of this down for the real events in let's say a diary fashion then it really can happen. You must believe in yourself?
sathead your writing is difficult to follow. what im really trying to say is this.... if i drum in my house either intending or believing that spirits will gather then its more likely they will. though, if i drum in my house with the intention to build a barrier around my house that spirits cannots pass, then that ritual is equally as powerful. in the subtle realms we are talking about...more importantly than what we do, is why we do it. for the sake of what? rituals are a symbolic acting out of what we mean to perform in the non-physical realms, the action itself is just a metaphor. because our energy is directed and focused it is capable of imprinting an energetic quality upon a realm that is governed by such forces. as the taoists would say (you seem to appreciate that set of lenses), the manifest (physical/earth) is born of the unmanifest (spirit/ether).
