Shamanism and Occam's Razor

[Lou Gold]

As a non-philosopher following the debates here it's easy to see an endless stream of projected plausible models, metaphors, analogs that trigger, in the philosophical tradition, a dialogic search for Truth. In the Shamanic tradition one opens to the Truth (infinite possibilities) and waits to see the Way. Is Way-finding (doing whatever works) more parsimonious than Truth-searching?

[Simon Adams]

I think it’s a good question Lou. One thing I love about the Catholic church is the fact they take ‘reason’ very seriously. To borrow from John Paul II, it’s all about faith and reason being like the wings of the dove, keeping the flight towards truth balanced. There is always a danger of putting the reasoning side above the living/contemplating side, which then becomes disconnected. I quite like the Eastern Orthodox approach, which takes this even further, to the point where philosophy or theology done by someone who doesn’t make as much effort on spiritual practice is seen as having no value at all.

I think there is plenty of room for people in any real spiritual tradition who just want to live it and aren’t interested in the intellectual side. But equally I’d argue that you need some people in each community/tradition who are keeping it honest intellectually. You need both sides in the overall community at least, else it drifts into either muddy waters or useless sterile words. That means the majority of us in the middle have people with strengths on either side to guide us.

I guess in many traditions, such as Zen Buddhism, the balance is kept in a different way by having ‘masters’ with a level of direct understanding and experience, which seems to be another option.

[SanteriSatama]

In some cultures and traditions Truth is very abstract and distant concept, such as logical truth values of propositions.

In our language truth is simply phenomenal actualization, as happens, so truth is always directly present in and as sentience. Path finding is a function among many others, shamanhood consists of many various functions, which have evolved into various forms of art, science, politics etc. Western culture is not a-shamanic, it has very troubled anti-shamanic history which culminated when middle age transformed into modern age. Because the existing social institutions of shamanhood failed deeply (check the crisis of late middle age for genuine horror stories), on some collective level the society at large responded with the Great Which hunt, as hierarchical societies perform their institution of scapegoating. It's very complex history all in all, and sense making of takes a long time even in very modest form. But sense making is also necessary for path finding out of the current dead ends that the history has created.

"Entities should not be multiplied without necessity", the Latin etc. European versions seem to implicate existential quantification by 'multiplicenda', but is quantification as such a necessary entity, especially as metaphysically foundational concept? Not in my view. So as its formulated, the principle of parsimony becomes if not totally meaningless, at least philosophically vague as we cease to subscribe to its own metaphysical presupposition, which it kind of deviously postulates.

Interestingly, our word for 'multiply', kertoa, has also the same and more general meaning as Latin-English 'narrate'. Which brings the question back to story telling and being.

[Lou Gold]

I think it’s a good question Lou. One thing I love about the Catholic church is the fact they take ‘reason’ very seriously. To borrow from John Paul II, it’s all about faith and reason being like the wings of the dove, keeping the flight towards truth balanced. There is always a danger of putting the reasoning side above the living/contemplating side, which then becomes disconnected. I quite like the Eastern Orthodox approach, which takes this even further, to the point where philosophy or theology done by someone who doesn’t make as much effort on spiritual practice is seen as having no value at all.

I think there is plenty of room for people in any real spiritual tradition who just want to live it and aren’t interested in the intellectual side. But equally I’d argue that you need some people in each community/tradition who are keeping it honest intellectually. You need both sides in the overall community at least, else it drifts into either muddy waters or useless sterile words.

I grok what you are saying. Not in contentention and staying with the dove metaphor, I'm saying the Shamanic Way side steps the faith/reason debate by focusing on the flight both soaring and landing and seeking what works. I was blessed to be led into a mystical Euro-Catholic-Amazonian-and-African-Shamanic syncretization that led me to reconnect with my ancestral Jewish roots. Nowadays, I'm grateful for all of it.

[Lou Gold]

In some cultures and traditions Truth is very abstract and distant concept, such as logical truth values of propositions.

In our language truth is simply phenomenal actualization, as happens, so truth is always directly present in and as sentience. Path finding is a function among many others, shamanhood consists of many various functions, which have evolved into various forms of art, science, politics etc. Western culture is not a-shamanic, it has very troubled anti-shamanic history which culminated when middle age transformed into modern age. Because the existing social institutions of shamanhood failed deeply (check the crisis of late middle age for genuine horror stories), on some collective level the society at large responded with the Great Which hunt, as hierarchical societies perform their institution of scapegoating. It's very complex history all in all, and sense making of takes a long time even in very modest form. But sense making is also necessary for path finding out of the current dead ends that the history has created.

"Entities should not be multiplied without necessity", the Latin etc. European versions seem to implicate existential quantification by 'multiplicenda', but is quantification as such a necessary entity, especially as metaphysically foundational concept? Not in my view. So as its formulated, the principle of parsimony becomes if not totally meaningless, at least philosophically vague as we cease to subscribe to its own metaphysical presupposition, which it kind of deviously postulates.

Interestingly, our word for 'multiply', kertoa, has also the same and more general meaning as Latin-English 'narrate'. Which brings the question back to story telling and being.

So as its formulated, the principle of parsimony becomes if not totally meaningless, at least philosophically vague as we cease to subscribe to its own metaphysical presupposition, which it kind of deviously postulates.

Clever mind is quick to find deviousness. However, KISS does seem preferable. "Keep It Simple Stupid" or "There never was a big problem that could not have been solved when small." Bottom line surely is story telling and being.

[SanteriSatama]

Clever mind is quick to find deviousness. However, KISS does seem preferable. "Keep It Simple Stupid" or "There never was a big problem that could not have been solved when small." Bottom line surely is story telling and being.

As I tried to say, in our language truth is not a linguistic concept, it's as simple and natural as Tao. When it comes to language games, our tribe is a devious bunch as we are lazy bastards and spent much time trying to trick each other to do the chores, etc. Which BTW has consequences if you have the gullible mindset and behavior of an authoritarian follower... which, we could infer, is not a cultural preference of our anarchist tribe.

You ask a question about parsimony and get the answer: no, not even the presupposition of your question is necessary. Being is not storytelling based on presupposition of numbers, numbers and their relations is just a form of story.telling.

For path finding, the presupposition of better and worse is a necessity. Story telling necessitates more-less relation as relevant to being.

If you don't like the answer, make up a better one. But please don't play stupid, you aren't and it doesn't suit you, bro.

[Lou Gold]

Clever mind is quick to find deviousness. However, KISS does seem preferable. "Keep It Simple Stupid" or "There never was a big problem that could not have been solved when small." Bottom line surely is story telling and being.

As I tried to say, in our language truth is not a linguistic concept, it's as simple and natural as Tao. When it comes to language games, our tribe is a devious bunch as we are lazy bastards and spent much time trying to trick each other to do the chores, etc. Which BTW has consequences if you have the gullible mindset and behavior of an authoritarian follower... which, we could infer, is not a cultural preference of our anarchist tribe.

You ask a question about parsimony and get the answer: no, not even the presupposition of your question is necessary. Being is not storytelling based on presupposition of numbers, numbers and their relations is just a form of story.telling.

For path finding, the presupposition of better and worse is a necessity. Story telling necessitates more-less relation as relevant to being.

If you don't like the answer, make up a better one. But please don't play stupid, you aren't and it doesn't suit you, bro.

My point was the Shamanism makes simple what Western philosophy, with it's clever minds, makes complicated. Did this feel like I missed or did I not like your answer?

[Soul_of_Shu]

This NTA interview may be of interest for its comparative exploration of shamanism vis-a-vis postmodern psychology.

[SanteriSatama]

Shamanism

There's no such thing, except in the twisted imagination of Mirca Eliade.

makes simple what Western philosophy, with it's clever minds, makes complicated. Did this feel like I missed or did I not like your answer?

Sounded like you criticized my brilliant answer as too complicated, and demanded yet again another eli5. That's hurtful and boring for my performance artist ego.

[SanteriSatama]

This NTA interview may be of interest for its comparative exploration of shamanism vis-a-vis postmodern psychology.

I had to stop at first comment. The Russian ethnographers used the term 'shamanhood' to describe the Siberian phenomenon, Juha Pentikäinen has continued and recommended that practice. "Shamanism" is originally Mirca Eliades Western invention, and Harner's "Core Shamanism" is horribly wrong New Age commercial woo.

What is "postmodern psychology", except tone of irony?