You can ask me questions here.
- Questions may be asked in English, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Northern Sami, French, or German.
- Anonymous submissions are allowed, but your IP address may be logged (in case a question ever needs to e.g. be reported to the police or something).
- The question queue is moderated. Your question will generally not be published before it is answered.
- If you don’t want your question to be published publicly here, it’s possible to use the Contact form instead (but I make no response guarantees there, and you can’t be anonymous).
- Currently, questions may not contain HTML.
- I may choose to not publish or answer questions that:
- promote disinformation or hate;
- advertise particular products or services;
- contain personal or sensitive information;
- are abusive or of a harassing nature;
- or I’m just not legally allowed to answer.
- I will generally try to answer questions within a few days.
Categories: all (36) | art (1) | climate (1) | cosmos (9) | creativity (1) | intelligence (1) | math (2) | media (1) | sami (2) | shamanism (16) | technology (2)
I’m sorry about my questions coming across stupid, but I really need to know how to deal with this. I don’t want nothing to do with it either. I’ve been stalling for a long time, I have been self medicating to keep things at arms length. Didn’t help. I don’t want everything I have worked hard for to be flushed down the toilet because of the spirits. I know I can’t just tell them to go, but I’m not the right person to go down that path.
I guess I’m asking for advice.
I don’t know enough about your situation, like what you’ve worked so hard for, to give you specific advice. But in general, if you mean things like a career, there’s probably no reason you can’t do both. After all, in most places that matter, discrimination based on religion is illegal, so you can’t be fired for this.
I certainly don’t plan to end my own professional career anytime soon. In fact, having a separate professional career means I don’t need to make money from any spiritual work I might want to do on the side. I can do healing work completely for free, which is good because it means I can afford to be choosy about who I want to work with, and it makes me more trustworthy for those who do seek my help, since they can be sure I’m not trying to scam anyone.
But in the end, I think the most important thing to do is to listen to your heart. Sometimes following it is risky, but ask yourself: if you’re given one chance at happiness, and you don’t go for it, would the life you’d be left with really be worth living? Sometimes you just have to be willing to take some chances. And if you’ve got good spirits with you, they’ll see to it that you don’t have to lose whatever really matters to you.
If you need more specific advice, you should probably contact me privately, with my contact form.
Did you ever feel the weight of it? Did it haunt you or was it merely a case of scientific curiosity?
If I didn’t feel the weight of it, I wouldn’t have bothered with it. After all, I’ve had no desire for this, not even out of curiosity. But spirits as powerful as those I apparently have, don’t come around for no reason. So now I have a long path to take, and a difficult job to do, and I have to figure out how to do it. But I can’t just walk away.
I’m sorry for coming across as a little slow, but I didn’t really understand what your experience with the trance was. Was it like you had a longing for letting it get to you before you started participating in the shamanic program? Did you ever want to just let go and do it without the guidance of a shaman?
No. I’ve never had any desire for any of this.
In Sámi folklore there’s a lot of potential downsides of shamanism displayed, so I agree with you that nobody should venture into shamanism without being guided by a shaman.
If you would allow me to be straightforward, have you tried, or rather considered, letting the trance embrace you? If so, have you been under the supervision of a shaman. If not, are you having a hard time suppressing the “urge” to go there all alone?
Of course. I’m in fact a graduate of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies’ “Three Year Program of Advanced Initiations in Shamanism and Shamanic Healing”. I noticed that over time, both the other participants and the instructor started treating me as one of the participants with the strongest spirits. However, while I learned a number of interesting shamanic techniques, the program did not really answer the questions I was most interested in. But it was always clear I still have a path ahead, and presumably this includes doing my own research about some things.
This might be a dumb question, but does the shamans themselves have an understanding of the foundations of their work? I’m asking this because of your example with driving a car, and what your stance about not getting involved with shamanism without being under supervision of a shaman.
In general, no, at least not in the sense I’m interested in. Shamans function as conduits between the physical world and the spirit world. To open the channel, most shamans have to get into a trance in some way, but most of the actual work is done by the shaman’s helping spirits. The shamans just need to follow the instructions of their helping spirits, and do not need to know what that does. Over time shamans will of course learn what works best for them, ways to get into deep trance, best practices, how to deal with various issues, which spirits can do what, etc, but they don’t need to know the physical mechanisms behind it, or what spirits actually are.
But it’s still not a good idea to try it without the guidance of an experienced shaman. Attempting to become a conduit without guidance and spiritual protection opens you up to various forms of danger, including things like traumas, mental issues (schizophrenia etc), and even bodily harm in some cases.
You’re saying that you’re not sure about how this works. Is it possible that your angle is skewed? You’re highlighting your view by using the combustion process of an engine as a model. I know that’s just a way of simplifying your train of thought, but are you sure that your way of trying to understand shamanism is nothing but a Western way of thinking?
First: That’s not a model, not at all. Using a car engine as a model for this would be insane. And it’s not a simplification, either. I only meant it for what I said: a comparison.
Anyway, when it comes to your main question, my response would be: Perhaps, but what difference does it make? Would the answer change anything? I’d say it wouldn’t, for at least two reasons:
- It doesn’t change the problem. Regardless of why, the fact remains I’m still trying to figure out how this works, and this would not change what it would take to understand how it works.
- “Thinking” does not determine reality. All these ways of thinking, Eastern and Western, whatever, exist on the same world, Earth. Thus, they must share the same underlying reality, even though you can of course approach this reality in many different ways — and usually have to, because reality can be a rather tricky thing. In fact, there’s not even a standard Western thinking. Here’s a breakdown of the most important Western ways of thinking I know of:
- The materialistic, rather “apatheistic” way of life (not caring about whether there’s a God or not). In this, I include atheists, agnostics, and even many Christians. The only deity actually worshipped, is Mammon (aka money, for those who don’t know). Very science-based otherwise, and thus with a mostly reasonable (but not great) understanding of the material side of reality.
- Active Christianity, i.e., genuinely worshipping and seeking spiritual guidance. Does not acknowledge any other spirits than the one god, and rejects any reality that would contradict their faith. Thus, generally poor understanding of both the material and spiritual side of reality.
- New Age and other forms of paganism (e.g. Wicca) and shamanism. Acknowledges spirits and their power (although attempted explananations may be ad hoc and even contradictory), but tends to have poor understanding of the material side of reality.
And of course, there’s also not a standard Eastern way of thinking, either, although many Eastern approaches have a strong focus on the spiritual self in various ways, in particular about how to develop and improve yourself within some framework (sometimes with the aim of transcending ordinary physical limitations, but usually it’s more about becoming a good person). They acknowledge the existence of spirits without bodies, but don’t really explain why they have power over anything in the material world.
Notice how there’s no approach that really tries to understand what’s between the material and the spiritual world? I’m not aware of anyone who really knows what’s there. None of the common ways of thought seems to address how this works, neither Eastern nor Western. So, when that’s the goal (and it is for me), does it really make a difference where you come from? I know where I want to go, and I know that to get there, I have to seek truth, and not be satisfied with anything less.
You gonna update your Shamanism section anytime soon? What you are discerning about the subject is interesting.
Yours sincerely,
Kelly Rodriguez
The main problem I’ve had with doing that, is that I strive to be educational, first explaining the fundamentals of how things work, and then build up to more complex things. However, nobody I’ve met really knows why these things work. They often do have observable effects, but the technical mechanisms, as well as the frameworks which they might fit into, are unknown. There’s no shortage of ideas, but there’s definitely a shortage of actual technical understanding. You could compare it to driving a car: if someone (like the spirits) give you one, you can of course drive it without understanding how the engine works. But I want to be able to explain how the engine works, and I want my explanation to be as bullshit-free as possible. For example, I will not use New-Age-style buzzwords like “vibrations” or “energies” if I can’t explain precisely what exactly they mean, and that whatever they’re referring to actually exists. I suppose there are some pieces of the puzzle I do have some ideas about, and perhaps could write a few words about, but I don’t know yet exactly how it all fits together. (Anyone who thinks they might be able to help with that, feel free to contact me.)
Of course, it would still be possible to write about how to “drive” instead, i.e., about the practices of shamanism. However, I don’t really like that idea either, because, for your own safety, shamanism should generally only be learned under the supervision of another shaman. Besides, there are many resources and courses available. And I might also myself be willing to give a free crash course to anyone I like enough. (Again, anyone who’d like to give that a shot should feel free to contact me.)
Granted, there are some concepts which could be useful for non-shamans to know about, such as power animals and whatnot, but they’re very far away from a Western understanding of how the world works, and thus hard to explain properly. So I just don’t feel very comfortable writing about the practice of shamanism before I understand the mechanisms of why it works myself. I hope to gain enough insight to do that soon, though I might need help from others to get there.
Hei, tenker du at inkarnasjon kan være er en mekanisme for læring eller utvikling? Jeg har lest at oppfatningen i tibetansk buddhisme er at vi ikke husker våre tidligere liv (mens vi lever dette livet), men at vi kan få innblikk i tidligere liv etter døden i et slags mellomstadie("bardo"). For meg gir det ikke mening å lære samtidig som man ikke husker det man tidligere har lært. Er meningen at vi skal lære hvordan vi lærer?
Her gjør du et par antagelser.
1. Du antar at det alltid gir mening å huske, men det gjør det ikke. Når man gjenfødes, vil man ofte få tildelt en rolle man ikke har hatt før. Hvis du husker tidligere roller, vil du kanskje falle tilbake til dem, i stedet for å fordype deg i din nye rolle. I slike situasjoner må du altså glemme dine tidligere erfaringer, for å fullt ut kunne tilegne deg dine nye. (Men selvfølgelig finnes det også roller hvor man får lov å huske, som f.eks. hvis man er Dalai Lama eller noe.)
2. Du antar at læringen det er snakk om, gjøres med hodet. Det gjør det som regel heller ikke. Læringen vi snakker om her, gjøres med det vi kaller hjertet. Og de som hører på sitt hjerte, de vil ofte merke at hjertet faktisk husker. Hjertet bruker det den har lært til å hjelpe til med livet så godt den kan. Men da må altså hodet, som ikke husker, være villig til å høre på hjertet.
Jeg har lest noen av Secharia Stichins bøker der Sitchin prøver å gi oss en helhetlig oppstilling av menneskets historie. Hvordan og hvorfor mennesket oppstod. Sitchin sier at hans kunnskap kommer fra oversettelse av kileskrift fra det Sumerske riket. Han skriver at Sumererne mente at de hadde fått all sin kunnskap fra gudene ( Anunnakiene) som kom fra verdensrummet. Jeg synes menneskets opphav, hensikt og historie blir forståelig hvis man kan legge Sitchins historie til grund. Har du noe synspunkt på dette som du ønsker å dele med meg?
Det at noe blir forståelig er på ingen måte et argument for at det er riktig. Argumenter av den typen kalles “argument fra uvitenhet”, eller
“argument from incredulity”. Jeg tror ikke det er det som er argumentet ditt her, men jeg tror uansett det er viktig å innse at det er veldig individuelt hva som er forståelig og hva som ikke er det, og at det derfor finnes mange forskjellige perspektiver, og magefølelsen er ofte ikke god nok til å finne den riktige. Så hvis man virkelig vil vite sikkert, må man basere seg på det man har bevis for.
Det betyr ikke nødvendigvis at det sumererne hevder er helt feil, men de så ting på sin måte, og det finnes et større bilde. Svarene på hva som egentlig har hendt med menneskeheten involverer nok mange flere faktorer enn bare dette..
Hello Ove
Jim Tucker Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Thinks that quantum mechanics can prove reincarnation.
Here is link to the discussion. Starts from about 36:37
https://youtu.be/jG4a8f46w2E
Could this be reasonable?
Cheers Magnus
No, at least not the way you phrase the question. By itself, quantum mechanics can’t prove much of anything beyond itself, that’s not how it works. To scientifically “prove” something, you need observable evidence of it (and even then you can never prove anything with 100% certainty, because there’s always a chance of flaws in your evidence). That is, evidence is used to prove the correctness of quantum mechanics, not the other way around. Once proven, it can obviously be used for technological applications such as making computer chips and whatnot, but it can’t by itself prove something bigger than itself, much less metaphysical claims like this. So, to prove reincarnation, it would make sense to use data such as near-death experiences and people remembering their past lives in a verifiable way, but quantum mechanics as a theory won’t help you. If anything, it’d be an obstacle: you’d have to either show that reincarnation doesn’t contradict quantum mechanics, or if it does, that there’s something wrong with quantum mechanics. (Fortunately, quantum mechanics has nothing to say about it, so there’s no inherent contradiction between these things. I suspect that’s also what he’s trying to say in the video. QM doesn’t contradict it, it just doesn’t help you.)
← Older
Newer →