Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:But, what I said in a previous post holds; 'Traditions' have a certain regard for each other that they do not have for young or newly started 'traditions'. The non-religious 'tradition' that many people here on the Watch are part of is 'The Enlightenment' which is a mere 400 years old. (I'm a member of this tradition myself, BTW.)

I suppose. But that and $2.26 will get me a large coffee at DD.

Great! An uss-and-Fist to-and-fro!



What I mean by this is that a member of a 'Tradition' will be completely immune to the most powerful arguments of the younger 'tradition'. They will literally seem like a stonewall


To reasonable folk like ourselves that may be extremely frustrating because, if you come from a 'Tradition' (as I do) then these very arguments will have been the ones that convinced you. For some one else to be totally immune to them (even dismissive) may be challenging (or infuriating (Or in the case of Fist causing him to spend $2.26 )).

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Vraith wrote:It's when it becomes Tradition, claims Truth, that it goes wrong...in many ways and cases, it becomes anti-survival.

This is interesting and it ties in with shamanism because in societies where there was a shaman his/her job was to mediate between the 'other' world and the world the society existed in. I think it may be when knowledge of the 'other' world is used for material gain that power becomes an issue. While shamans may not have ruled their societies they did wield a lot of influence.

Material gain *or* political power. If all power is concentrated in the hands of one person -- the shaman -- then it's not a problem (unless the shaman's a despot, and then it's not the shaman's problem! :lol) ). But once the duties of running the tribe are split between the shaman and the chief, then I can envision a tug-of-war between the religious and the secular for ultimate control.