> Lui :
> > > Greg uses 'animist' (and pretty much interchangeably, 'shamanic') in
> > > a manner that's rather too broad for my tastes.
>
> Moi :
> > Mine too.
> >
> > But let's at least *try* and keep this a 'rules' issue ?
>
> This is precisely a rules issue:
agh ! having this *particular* argument of mine thrown back at me is quite vexing (culpa non tua Alexi).
> 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?
No.
> Not that I think there's much
> wrong with the present rules as such, it could just give some
> funny results, if, well, 'misapplied'.
Agreed.
> > > 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...)
No, sorry, disagree.
What frex might an 'advanced' animist look like ?
> > > then there are the 'totemic shamanists', ...
> >
> > Yes : bad ellipsis there IMO.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow you.
erm ... Not in HW although they should have been ??
cheers,
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail