>Animist: trauma = spawning of/collision with other worlds; bad = local
> disaster; rescue = shamanic resurrection.
Hmm. I get the other worlds problem and the local disaster problem, but I'm struggling with the shamanic resurrection part. So, some questions, to help reveal the depth of my ignorance:
1. Is this universal (meaning that you could make that observation with at least some small degree of truth for 85% of cultures, a la Capmbell)?
2. I thought the animist story was more about putting things in their proper places again. The dead go over here, the living go over here, the animals do this, the people do that, the plants do something else, here's how you talk to the dead, here's how you talk to the animals, here's how you talk to the mountain, etc. Isn't this the case? If so, does shamanic resurrection mean the placement of things in their proper places, thuis allowing the living to continue living?
3. The restoration of the spirits to their proper places can be seen as consistent with the theist version of the god being reborn from hell. That was not the proper place for them. In that respect, the animists, whose way of dealing with the otherworld is through negotiation, are even more likely than the theists to think of the events preceding the Dawn as a Great Compromise. Orlanthi might think of the Lightbringer's Quest as Orlanth and his buddies bringing back the sun. And the Dara Happans might be more likely to think of it as Yelm deciding to return after his indignities had been burnt away through the proper obeisance of the rebels. But I think an animist would say that each of them had something they needed to return to their proper places and gave what they did not need so that they could go back there. Is this not the case?
Thanks,
Chris Lemens
Powered by hypermail