Moi:
> > Greg uses 'animist' (and pretty much interchangeably, 'shamanic') in
> > a manner that's rather too broad for my tastes.
Julian Lord:
> Mine too.
>
> But let's at least *try* and keep this a 'rules' issue ?
This is precisely a rules issue: the question is, are all 'animists' alike, or rather enough alike to be best served by one set of terminology, and one set of rules? Not that I think there's much wrong with the present rules as such, it could just give some funny results, if, well, 'misapplied'.
> > I think that at the least, there are 'primitive animists', ...
>
> 'Ecstatic' shamanists perhaps, for coherence' sake ?
I don't think that terminology is any better. (Quite the reverse, in fact, it's misleading in about two respects...)
> > then there are the 'totemic shamanists', ...
>
> Yes : bad ellipsis there IMO.
Sorry, I don't follow you.
Slán,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail