Talk:Separate reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed this from the article:

A Separate Reality, in the context of shamanism, seems to imply a type of dualism, an equal reality from which people in their "normal state of mind" are excluded. The idea goes back to a myth so ancient that it is repeated in the mythologies of peoples all over the world. The basic idea of that myth is that there was once a permanent connection between the world of the gods and the world of human beings. Because of the irresponsible and irritating behavior of the humans, the gods destroyed the link. Thereafter, humans could only communicate with the gods by leaving their "universe" and entering the "universe" of the gods.

If one watches a shaman at work, one may see an individual climbing a tall pole set up in the middle of a clearing. That is to describe the shaman's voyage from an everyday point of view. But the shaman's experience is entirely different from ours. He is in a separate reality from ours, he might explain, and his experience involves ascending to heaven, communicating with the gods who are its denizens, securing aid from them (usually in the form of information about remedies to some problem faced by individuals in the community or the entire community), and then returning to earth and the shaman's "home reality."

The reason I removed it is because it is fiction -- or, if it is not fiction, it is written as if it is fiction. Wikipedia articles must be about real things -- in this case, it would be real beliefs and real practices of shamans. But these passages uses words like "seems to imply" (which implies that there is in fact a different meaning, although that meaning is never given). That a mythic motif is widely shared may be because of the antiquity of the motif, but there are other explanations and this passage give no reasons or evidence for this claim. The locution "If ... one may see" is a perfect example of un-encyclopedic writing. Such a locution shows that this is just something someone imagined. An article on shamanic beliefs and practices should be based on facts about shamanic beliefs and practices, not a series of speculative mypotheticals. "But the shaman's experience is entirely different from ours" is also awful style. It assumes that all readers of Wikipedia have the same beliefs. Why? It is certainly possible that some of the readers of Wikipedia are shamans! "he might explan" is another example of fantasy. What have real shamans actually said? Slrubenstein 16:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggested a compromise to Acidmonkey -- that those who think the passages in question have value could put this info on Castenada's explanation of "Separate Reality" in an article in a page about that book. Geo Swan 20:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't even object to these passages being put back in this article -- as long as they are rewritten to be concrete rather than hypothetical, and properly sourced and cited. Slrubenstein 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The duality link

The article tries to relate "separate reality" to a physics article -- on duality. I don't see any connection. Geo Swan 04:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)