The map of "shamanism"

1.  The issue of language use at different levels:

I think using the term “shamanism” does lead to some misunderstandings at the middle level of consciousness, with middle level people, because what it means to them is a way of life, or idealizing a the behavior of the ancients.  What it SHOULD mean to the higher level of the mind is risk taking and adventurism within one’s own mind and in relation to the world.   So already we are speaking two different languages – and, unfortunately, this problem cannot be easily solved by changing our terminology, although we could perhaps change our language to be more cryptic in some ways and more open in other ways, thus allowing two simultaneous meanings, on two different levels, to flourish.

As for the term “dissociation”, it also has the exact same problems associated with it.  One one level (the middle level, or herd level) it means pure escapism.  On the higher level, it means heroism.  But first, let me try to explain.

When I had the negative workplace situation at the union job, it was worse than just a “negative” situation.   I’m understating or minimalizing what occurred.   In fact, whereas I had had chronic fatigue syndrome in a moderate way before, now my whole digestive system had collapsed.  I had to take very, very long rests during much of the day, but still without much sign of improvement over a number of months that ran into years. 

I remember thinking to myself at that time.  “Ok.  It’s as if you were riding your bicycle and you were hit by a car and now your body is all mangled.  But if you lie there and wait for me and switch off your mind as much as possible so as not to digest the pain, because that takes up too much energy, I will go and get help and come back for you.”

Actually my mental pain and disappointment at the set back and what it seemed to imply about me as a person was very extreme.  I had to switch off from my rage and my intense sadness.  These emotions were so intense at that time that I did not know how to handle them.  So I went looking.  And that is when I began reading Nietzsche books over and over again, looking for answers.  (I had the basic understanding at that time that I needed to reformat my mind, so I was looking for a blueprint that was more adjusted to MODERNITY and would not mislead me as my existing map had done.)

So switching off from aspects of my own mind whilst I looked for a map to help me became a mode of mental discipline for me.   (And I have always said, and been quite clear about it, that MY understanding of shamanic “dissociation” involves DOUBLING.)

So, eventually, what I have NOW is a map, and one that has continued to help me to restore my physiological and mental health.   It doesn’t matter what you call it, as as the middle level it will still be misunderstood.  The reason why it will be misunderstood?  Because so far as middle level people are concerned, THEY already have a map, which they do not need to look for.  That map is defined FOR THEM by the drive to conformity, which satisfies them completely.

But I had TRIED conformity and that had not worked for me, but had only made me physically ill.  So *I* needed a different map from them.

Now, as you can see I am not talking about anything either particularly ancient OR modern when I speak about having created my paradigm.   I’m just relating things from the point of view of my own experiences and how I think the mind can redeem itself.

(And by the way, you can see I even take Nietzsche’s notion of sickness or invalidity very seriously.)

2.

So am I NOW tough?  Well, my spirit (relating to my internal sensations of success or failure) is well enough happy that I am *sufficiently* tough.   And, whereas sufficient toughness is all that is needed relative to a situation, the outcome is ABSOLUTE in relation to oneself – one EITHER passes the line and restores one’s physical and mental health or one does not.  I have done so – and therefore the outcome is, on a personal level, ABSOLUTE.  But one must always remember that INTRApersonal toughness (between the individual and himself) and INTERpersonal toughness (between the individual and various others) are two different things. 

3. 

SHAMANIC dissociation (the form that involves doubling, to “get help”—one might also call it “instrumental dissociation”) – is not the same as involuntary dissociation.   (One might imagine a situation where somebody involuntarily dissociates, for instance if their leg is blown off, and this does actually buy them time to get help, but these are not precisely the same things.)   The point of shamanic dissociation is to split oneself into two to find answers by research and experimentation and then to return to oneself and make oneself WHOLE again (no longer split).

4. 

Perhaps the process of shamanic splitting followed by recovery can be never-ending (a continuous dialectic), as we temporarily shelter ourselves under a rain umbrella in order to find answers.  But we must, in the end, integrate those answers with our WHOLE BEING, to build health.  Endless doubling is itself not the answer. 

5.

In the end, the problem of communicating “shamanic” experiences may be related to the opacity of language in terms of how it functions in a LIMITED way according to our basic principles of life, which can be very different as explained by the video.  If one’s phenomenological range is bound by the desire and need to conform, one will draw very different meanings from all sorts of terminology than if one’s range is determined by the capacity and need for risk and adventure.  What cannot be avoided are misunderstandings – although the source of these can now be UNDERSTOOD, at least, since we now have a map.