Subject: Have You Ever Seen A Shaman? Part 2.
April 18, 2008.
This discusses the statement that you can't
disprove a negative.
...................................................
...................................................
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
possible, with maybe a big or little m-racle or
two thrown in along the way. For some people,
mi-acles happen because of our limited knowledge
(delusion), Television would have seemed a mir-cle
in the 19th century. Others see mira-les as
Divine Intervention. But in both cases they seem
like mira-les 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 level; those
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 that, if these
axioms and ideas "Determine" our world view,
our perceptions and observations will "prove"
the underlying TRUTH.
In other words, our axioms determine our
world view; our world view determines our
perceptions. If it looks like an elephant,
walks like an elephant and feels like an
elephant, it must be an elephant!
If someone says, "But, look at the world out
there, it 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
either, since we are talking about the basis
for perception itself. If you can't "disprove"
this, you 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 Man, that'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 negative, then the
negative logical statement "You can't prove
a negative." is unprovable. So it's an
illogical thing to say.
(Actually, every negative statement entails
a positive, so there are no purely negative
logical statements.) Anyway, I 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 beliefs; shamans do it all the
time; humans have a talent for it; but a
shaman is aware of doing it.
Until a Rational Man has disproved this,
he 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 C-urch 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 faith, there is
no difference between "reasoned" faith and blind
faith: there is only blind faith. If you prefer
to call it reasonable faith, that's okay, but
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 be,
but that is another assumption.
Although I am using the term "belief" in
its intellectual sense, a shaman often views
reality as if it is the result of our beliefs,
expectations, intention, desire, focus, love
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 im****tant 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 (actually, I am talking about
`all' of our ideas, of course.) A corollary
might be: give people a break when we disagree
with them they may not be stupid, but just
working with different assumptions. Judgement
is an emotional reaction, not 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
decide, based on what you emotionally feel
comfortable with.
If something is real for us, we 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 true,
consider 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
perceptions, who can say that they are
independent of our beliefs? Who can say what
a perception actually is anyway, independent
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 say, as Samuel Johnson once said, "I
disprove it thus!"
Lobachevski, Riemann, and 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
choose, how can we know what is real?
Poincaré gave a shamanistic answer: the
question has no meaning. All of our concepts
are only `convenient' definitions, some more
interesting than others. Einstein, in true
shamanic fa****on, chose Riemann geometry to
describe space… and space complied.
All this won't come as a surprise to many
people: it can all be gleaned from any college
course in Philosophy of Science even though
most scientists think this is a lot of hog
wash (if they have thought about it at all),
they, and most other people, have an `emotional'
attachment to their World View. It gives them
stability and power. Shamans don't take things
so seriously, they are comfortable in a
changing world because they don't rely on it:
they find power from within.
I don't want to give the impression that
shamans are anti-science. Actually I suspect
most shamans have always viewed scientists as
kindred s-irits and look on science as a
fascinating and useful game. A game with
arbitrary fixed methods and rules (from a
shaman's point of view) such as repeatability,
double-blind experiments, `reducio ad absurdum',
etc. If you are playing a game of chess and
decide to make any move you want, you may have
fun, but you are no longer playing chess. The
game of science has its place in the scheme of
things and its Basic rules Have changed over
its history and (hopefully) will continue to
evolve.
Part 2.
John Winston. johnfw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
