> Greg sez:
>
> >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)?
Do you mean, is this "life and death resurrection show" applicable to 85% of
shamanic cultures?
I'd say yes.
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 theanimals, here's how you
> talk to the mountain, etc. Isn't this the case?
In order to put things into their place, separating things from the cosmic chaos, the actor must first have power over it, which is obtained through the shamanic power of resurrection.
> If so, does shamanic resurrection mean the placement of things in their
> proper places, thuis allowing the living to continue living?
Resurrection = taking he living back to the wold of the living, among other things.
> 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.
Part of this discussion is that consistency between the systems is not required. :)
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?
>
People say all kinds of things.
--
Greg Stafford
Game Designer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail