If you check out information about Shamanism, all the papers written by specialists, agree with the fact that shamans are related to some kind of religion — javi2541997

Imagine if there were no secular arts.
In indigenous times, there was no demarcation between spiritual and secular.
So yeah, if music wasn't secularized (taken out of a religious/spiritual context), then these same anthropologists who claim Shamanism is religious would probably say that, "Music is a religious ritual".

In indigenous times, there was no demarcation between spiritual and secular. — Yohan

Well, yes. But this is due to the fact that they didn't experience Enlightenment until the colonialism turned up. There was no demarcation because they didn't know what a secular system was about. I mean, they way of life was full of metaphors and shamanic rituals. Their citizens didn't have other choices.

Well, yes. But this is due to the fact that they didn't experience Enlightenment until the colonialism turned up. There was no demarcation because they didn't know what a secular system was about. I mean, they way of life was full of metaphors and shamanic rituals. Their citizens didn't have other choices. — javi2541997

I agree.
My point is that anything within a religious context, as far as I can tell, can be secularized, other than a belief in God, I suppose. They probably saw having sex and giving birth as sacred acts. Does that mean having sex and giving birth are related to the sacred?

Edit: Actually, I think God can be taken out of a religious context too. But it has a lot to do with linguistics.

Yes, I see your point and I am agree with you.

Actually, I think God can be taken out of a religious context too. But it has a lot to do with linguistics. — Yohan

I think not. Here I disagree. "God" is an elementary religious subterfuge used by all the religions. It cannot be explained out of religious doctrines because otherwise, it would be secularism and faith.
Also, the belief in God depends on faith. This concept is so much related to shamanism, animism, Judaism, Christianity, etc...
I do not know if these "thoughts" can see God outside a religious context.

I disagree with the fundamental notion that the ancients were necessarily, on the whole, more primitive in their development.

I think a lot of ancient mythology, for example, is very subtle and complex. What modern literature do we have that compares? Marvel Universe?

Sure, maybe it was only the minority in ancient times that were highly developed, while the masses were primitive brutes.

And what of today? Are not the masses cave men with smartphones?

I am agree with you in some parts.

It is true that primitive group were not less developed. But for a lot of reasons they weren't part of the "progress" because some decided to got stuck in their primitive thoughts and ideas while other groups started to develop different ideas.

You put a good example: mythology. This area of knowledge was pretty important to Ancient Greece, indeed. But keep in mind that it was "primitive" according to Plato and Socratic philosophers.
Philosophy started because in Ionia some thinkers decided to critique mythology because they saw it as "backwards"

And what of today? Are not the masses cave men with smartphones? — Yohan

Completely agree. Good example of our modern era.

It is true that primitive group were not less developed. But for a lot of reasons they weren't part of the "progress" because some decided to got stuck in their primitive thoughts and ideas while other groups started to develop different ideas. — javi2541997

I dunno. It may be a natural hierarchy. In the ancient Indian caste system, the Brahmins, or scholarly class, were the smallest class. Today philosophers and scientists are still the minority. If everyone performed the duty of the scholars, who would farm and build?

You put a good example: mythology. This area of knowledge was pretty important to Ancient Greece, indeed. But keep in mind that it was "primitive" according to Plato and Socratic philosophers. — javi2541997

I thinks mythology was important in every ancient culture. Most are of it has not been preserved.
I doubt the Socratic philosophers thought it was primitive. They were probably critical of interpreting it literally and romanticising it. Explicit vs implicit interpretation can make the difference between primitive and profound.

On another note, free thinkers have to either hide their thoughts in symbols and metaphors (implicit) or else risk backlash from those who don't want to have their comfortable beliefs rattled up. Eg, the execution of Socrates.

Anyway I suppose Bret Bernhoft is right.
If Shamanism is the oldest tradition of exploring the deeper side of life, it could be considered the primordial tradition of higher learning.

Today philosophers and scientists are still the minority. If everyone performed the duty of the scholars, who would farm and build? — Yohan

:up: :100:

A minority group which is capable of controlling those farmers and builders. We still live like in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece but with internet.

God" is an elementary religious subterfuge used by all the religions. — javi2541997

:100:

Am I out of the loop? Because I don't know what shamanism is and nobody seems to have bothered to explain what it is in a discussion about whether or not it's the root of all (or many) things.

From the very cursory things I looked up, it's described as a religious practice originating in Europe in which there are shamans that can be claimed to have attained transcendent powers. Can't really extrapolate from that how it would be the root of all things. I guess it would be helpful if you could give us your perspective on what Shamanism is and how its practiced.

I guess it would be helpful if you could give us your perspective on what Shamanism is and how its practiced.

Thank you for the inquest.

I was going to attempt an explanation in one succinct response, but that doesn't seem possible ATM. What I will do, however, is spend a couple of weeks writing a 1,000 - 3,000 word overview of my understanding of Shamanism And then when finished, I will share the essay/article here as a response in this thread.

Shamanism is an important philosophical thread in my life, and taking the time to explore why and how such is the case, will do good for those interested in learning more, as well as myself. Please be patient with my response, and understand that I will follow through with this objective. I have a lot to divulge.

I believe that you should give a definition or description of "shamanism", first thing, before anything else. So, I will do that for you, even if it's a little late ....

"Shamanism is a religious practice that involves a practitioner (shaman) interacting with what they believe to be a spirit world through altered states of consciousness, such as trance. The goal of this is usually to direct spirits or spiritual energies into the physical world for the purpose of healing, divination, or to aid human beings in some other way." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism)
(Anyone is welcome to present another description, from a standard source. However, I believe that its essence and main elements, esp. the necessity of the existence of a shaman and (powerful) spirits are all here.)

Shamanism is the root of all religious, spiritual and philosophical systems. — Bret Bernhoft

Is this a personal belief or is there an evidence/documentation about that?
Because I have a difficulty connecting Shamanism to ancient philosophy --Egyptian, Greek, Chinese or other.

Our human (and non-human) ancestors have practiced Shamanism as far back as 100,000 years, all around the planet — Bret Bernhoft

Again what is the reference you are using regarding time? Not that it is important per se, of course, but it has to do with the validity of the history of Shamanism, which you are bringing in.
Here's a reference, again from Wiki:
"Sanskrit scholar and comparative mythologist Michael Wetzel proposes that all of the world's mythologies, and also the concepts and practices of shamans, can be traced to the migrations of two prehistoric populations: the "Gondwana" type (of circa 65,000 years ago) and the "Laurasian" type (of circa 40,000 years ago)."

Then, what do you mean by "and non-human"? Someone like this: :naughty: ?
:grin:

Technoshamanism — Bret Bernhoft

Do you really believe that such a video or what the people do in it, can heal? Or that it can offer useful and important knowledge about life and existence, i.e. philosophical ideas, education, etc. ... (Besides what one should avoid doing?)

I make the claim that Shamanism is more quintessential than all other religious, spiritual and philosophical systems. — Bret Bernhoft

Just to make sure: Do you mean that Shamanism is more refined, of higher quality and class than philosophy as a system and quest for wisdom?
(Of course you don't. But you make it sound like this!)

And that science (itself) is a shamanic practice; — Bret Bernhoft

...

Bret, were you under drugs when you posted this? :smile:

Then, what do you mean by "and non-human"? Someone like this: :naughty: ?
:grin: — Alkis Piskas

I asked the same question too and I still wait for an answer because it intrigues me a lot what he would consider as a "non - human ancestor"

How's it going? I'm happy to respond to each of your points and questions. Here we go...

Is this a personal belief or is there an evidence/documentation about that? Because I have a difficulty connecting Shamanism to ancient philosophy --Egyptian, Greek, Chinese or other.

There is plenty of documentation, the evidence is all around you. And I'm compiling a post for this thread (which I will release on 9/11/22) exploring what's real in detail. And if you have a difficult time connecting the dots between Shamanism and ancient human philosophy, I would encourage you to investigate Divination, Hermeticism and Gnosis.

Again what is the reference you are using regarding time? Not that it is important per se, of course, but it has to do with the validity of the history of Shamanism, which you are bringing in.

Shamanism is timeless. All entities, either directly or indirectly, rely on Shamanism (and/or mutations and products of it). 100,000 years is a simple means of implying that pragmatic approaches to altering consciousness, and then using such states for gain, have been with us (and all others) since the beginning of time.

Then, what do you mean by "and non-human"?

Every entity, any entity (from living animals to eternal tulpas) utilize elements of Shamanism. You do too, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Do you really believe that such a video or what the people do in it, can heal? Or that it can offer useful and important knowledge about life and existence, i.e. philosophical ideas, education, etc.

If you're referring to the first video I shared, then my answer is "Yes". You probably don't appreciate what you're looking at there.

However, if you're referring to the second video I shared, then my answer is "No". This video is only informational. But pursuing Technoshamanism is a path towards wisdom and healing, yes. All technologies are sacred, especially modern information technologies.

Learn to code. And ascend.

Just to make sure: Do you mean that Shamanism is more refined, of higher quality and class than philosophy as a system and quest for wisdom?

Shamanism is a systematic and philosophical quest for wisdom. So, no.

Bret, were you under drugs when you posted this?

Nope. That's rather rude of you to even ask.

Take-home Messages
Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses.
Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it.
People display this bias when they gather or recall information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. — How Confirmation Bias Works

It's not philosophy because, like this thread, it is not self-critical.

It looks like just making shit up.

Every entity, any entity (from living animals to eternal tulpas) utilize elements of Shamanism. You do too, whether you acknowledge it or not. — Bret Bernhoft

Those (animals and "tulpas") are not even aware of themselves. Conciousness is a complex concept related to human knowledge. If a living animal has a very limited conciousness I guess they are not able to "practice" shamanism because they are not aware of such complexity...

It's not philosophy because, like this thread, it is not self-critical. — Banno

:100:

Thank you for the taking the time to post that long a reply.
And here's my equally long reply.
Please don't see it as criticism. I'm only looking for answers and trying to fill in the puzzle created in me by this subject and its description. However, after this, I see that instead of filling in the missing pieces, new pieces are added. So, I'm afraid I'm dealing here with a Sisyphean task or the heads of Lernaean Hydra! :grin:

There is plenty of documentation, the evidence is all around you. — Bret Bernhoft

Where is that plenty of documentation? Where is this evidence around me?

And if you have a difficult time connecting the dots between Shamanism and ancient human philosophy, I would encourage you to investigate Divination, Hermeticism and Gnosis — Bret Bernhoft

Let's see what Wikipedia says:

- Divination (from Latin divinare, 'to foresee, to foretell, to predict, to prophesy') is the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of an occultic, standardized process or ritual. Used in various forms throughout history, diviners ascertain their interpretations of how a querent should proceed by reading signs, events, or omens, or through alleged contact with a supernatural agency."
So, this has nothing to do whith philosophy.

- "Hermeticism, or Hermetism, is a label used to designate a philosophical system that is primarily based on the purported teachings of Hermes Trismegistus (a legendary Hellenistic combination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth). These teachings are contained in the various writings attributed to Hermes (the Hermetica), which were produced over a period spanning many centuries (c. 300 BCE – 1200 CE), and may be very different in content and scope."
So, this is indeed a philosophical system, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Shamanism. Besides, look at the dates ...

- "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (gnosis, f.). The term was used among various Hellenistic religions and philosophies in the Greco-Roman world. It is best known for its implication within Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence."
So, this has indeed something to do with philosophy, but in a very vague way.
Well, about a month ago you had posted a topic/poll "Gnosis is underappreciated and (often) slandered against as a legitimate form of spirituality", in which you didn't offer a definition either, and I had to do it for you, as in this topic! Yet, I would really prefer to offer yourself definitions or descriptions of the key terms in the subjects you are posting, like "Gnosis", "Shamanism". )
Anyway, I have explained the reasons why "Gnosis" is "underappreciated". (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/721553)

Shamanism is timeless — Bret Bernhoft

So, there no documentation about the 100,000 years you mentioned and it was just a figure of speech. meaning that Shamanism existed from the beginning of times, right? That is, before humans or even life appeared in the Universe?

Every entity, any entity (from living animals to eternal tulpas) utilize elements of Shamanism. — Bret Bernhoft

Ah, I see. You meant animals. OK. I couldn't think of that ...
But let me udestand this, I mean how animals could or can use a kind of Shamanism ...Certainly, there's no shaman wolf in a pack of wolves who communicates with the spirits of powerful volves that have died, etc. OK, but even if used in a metaphorical sense, how could something that resembles Shamanism work in a pack of wolves?

If you're referring to the first video I shared, then my answer is "Yes". You probably don't appreciate what you're looking at there. — Bret Bernhoft

OK. I admit I can't.

Learn to code. And ascend. — Bret Bernhoft

OK. this is too much! :angry: You have just killed my patience and goodwill in responding to you about this fiction you have posted and total lack of logic you are demonstrating.

You are not in a position to ask from people to learn --anything-- neither to ascend --in any way--, after all this fictional and unfounded things you keep talking about, and the low level of logic and knowledge you are demonstrating.

***

This is all from me. I won't come back to this thread or respond to any other post from you.

Is the "non-human" part the only strange thing that hit you in this topic? :smile:
Well, from what I indestood from his answer, he refers to animals (not aliens as I thought) ... That is, Shamanism in animals! Well, I would prefer he meant aliens! :grin:

Please don't see it as criticism. — Alkis Piskas

Why not? Why post to a philosophy forum if you are not looking for criticism?

But he said, specifically, non-humans ancestors

(and non-human) ancestors — Bret Bernhoft

He wasn't referring to living animals or tulpas or whatever until he answered your quotes.
This is why it shocked me. How can we have non-human ancestors when we are already humans?
It is pretty contradictory...

Why post to a philosophy forum if you are not looking for criticism? — Banno

You are rtight to say that. But see, usually, and in everyday life, esp. in personal relationships, criticism is viewed in a negative sense; mainly as an effort to find only faults in someone's words, behaviour, etc., i.e. trying to see only negative things in something or someone. And this was the case in this OP: I found only faults. And it's not the first time. That's why sometimes my comments have a bad reception from the other side, even I give good and a lot of reasons why a term, statement, argument is wrong of wrongly used. So, I call sometimes this as "constructive criticism".

On the other hand, in philosophy critical thinking is vital, and it must be used in discussions. But this is a much richer and important concept than "criticism".

But he said, specifically, non-humans ancestors — javi2541997

You are right. I forgot about ancestors!
Well, I tried to make the poster undestand the mistakes he did --in fact, almost everything in this OP has no sense and is full of contradictions, unfounded statements, confused thoughts and inexistent or wrong facts-- but in return I only received more of them! A total waste of time. So, I stopped caring about this OP.

Your intentions were welcomed, friend. I see that you wanted to know what was going on with this thread as I tried it too. But there are still more questions than answers...

But there are still more questions than answers... — javi2541997

Exactly. And that's why I stopped caring. I suggest you do the same thing, otherwise you might have shamanic nightmares! :grin:

otherwise you might have shamanic nightmares! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Oh boy! :rofl: :death: