Rose Baker - doubts about shamans

    In this class, a basic concept most of the authors and practices presuppose is that the subconscious has the ability to convey truths not only about current psychological state of the individual, but also about the broader cultural and objective truths. It's an interesting confliction between the idea that experiences are important, that the brain needs external experiences and that reliance on only the self and the mind is not enough, and the intense valuation of isolation and any processes which assist in listening to the quiet discourse of the subconscious. The belief that the subconscious is equally capable of insight as the conscious is not something I've overcome my doubts about. 

    Like, take shamans. If you ignore potential spiritual realities, what are they really learning in trances? The subconscious is powerful, but still subjective. Do dreams or visions tell you reality, or do they affirm what you already believe about your situation? If they trouble you, if they mean something to you, is that not a meaningless replication of your lived experience by your own psyche? For personal reflection, it is a valuable tool through which we can break through mental barriers or learn more about our traumas, and the animal part of our brain that hides behind conscious thought. But how valuable, and how insightful is it exactly?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kip Redick Example of a Blog Post

Rose Baker - Herbert's "Dune" and Martyrs

Joanah Eresechima - Blue Lock's Exploration of Flow