Psychoanalysis and shamanism share an interest in the same subject, the psyche, and yet they speak very different languages -- often using almost the same words. To begin with, shamanism's implicit point of reference is always "nature", whereas that of psychoanalysis is always "society".
Psychoanalysis is implicitly moral in terms of its goal of producing adaptation to societal norms, but shamanism views experiences in a morally neutral way. One can see how observations made in the spirit of shamanism can appear in a totally different light in terms of psychoanalysis. Nature is amoral, so observations made about relationships and experiences in light of this point of reference are morally neutral. Social organisation, however, is based on principles of morality. Relationships and experiences are therefore subject to moral examination and interrogation in order to produce conformity.
The moral neutrality of shamanism can be shown in the fact that shamans use sexual energy for self-transformation, but psychoanalyst Donald Meltzer maintains that orgasm without intercourse leads only into a realm of unproductive, indeed pathological fantasy.
SHAMANISM IS STRUCTURALLY IRONIC
Shamanism sets itself at odds with the fear of transgression, therefore it is necessarily ironic. Nietzsche's irony is shamanistic, for instance, in that it is entirely sourced in his awareness that there is an essential difference between humanity and nature: the body of Nietzsche's work is an attempt to find different ways to view these differences and to acknowledge them as part of our general awareness.
My writing is also never to be framed directly according to issues relating to society, but is always to be understood more directly in a shamanistic vein.
In other words, it is quite beneath me to try to argue against historical events or facts as they have happened. My concern is rather to connect the dots between seemingly unrelated aspects of experience that have gone unacknowledged in terms of the commonly accepted versions of history.
These links, I suggest, must first be grasped and understood, prior to making of any topic a moral issue.
2 comments:
"Must' is not in the sense of a moral imperative, but if you want to have a fruitful conversation or understand something that one has not understood before, one cannot go on relying on one's moral reflexes.
Moral reflexes keep us contained within the boundaries of our particular cultural mores, with a sense of automatic disgust and distaste for things we do not understand because they seem to us to be foreign, alien and potentially hostile.
I think the real issue might be that I am assuming a multi-leveled status of being human, where conscious morality perhaps forms one of the upper stratas.
If there are other levels of being, then the "must" need not have a quality of moral imperative. Not at all. Rather, we can see "must" as being driven by a thirst or quest for knowledge, on a fairly primal level.
In any case, the "must" is a necessary condition for not being stuck in the circular motion of making reflexive moral judgments about things that one PRESUMES one already understands fully --- but probably doesn't.
Post a Comment