Plurality and neo-shamanism
Oct. 30th, 2013 09:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fuzzyjayling posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
plural_magicI suppose I owe this post, considering that I wrote that ask on LivingPlural about the topic. >_>
I've drawn a lot of parallels between various modes of magic and being on here, including speaking to spirits, praying, animism, plurality/multiplicity, and neo-shamanic journeying. I admit it's a hand-waving sort of discourse, but I mostly want to point out that these things are not such vastly different exercises as people often think. They aren't the same thing (IMO), but they do share a number of traits, and there's a commonality running between them: there is one body out here, and more than one person in communication in there. This is what I call plural magic, wherever it "comes from".
I also believe that we can use these congruencies and similarities to learn from different modes of working, and that we can sometimes even pick up a new method for something that we do, which was previously applied only to another mode. For example, the same methods one might use to improve communication with a plural headmate may also be very useful when trying to increase the clarity with which one can speak to animistic spirits or deities. They're not the same thing, but they have congruencies from which we can synthesise new methods.
This, to me, is what's so exciting about the concept of this group. So! Today I wish to write about neo-shamanism and plurality cross-overs.
I think it's helpful to define these terms first.
I speak of neo-shamanism here because shamanism itself describes a particular aboriginal custom spread through (according to Wikipedia) eastern Europe through parts of the Middle East and on into Russia and Siberia. Wikipedia on Shamanism.
I'm going to quote Wikipedia's definition of shamanism, because I think it's illustrative:
I define neo-shamanism as the modernised, westernised version of this practice. There is a commonly accepted practice that is basically:
a) Enter an altered state of consciousness. Depending on the person, this could be anywhere from a self-induced hypnotic type trance (looking deeply inward) to using mind-altering substances. The deeper states of even the self-induced hypnotic variety may result in sleep paralysis and similar issues upon return.
b) Visit an upper (transcendent), middle (earthly), or lower (mythical/archetypical) world.
c) Speak to guides (spirits).
d) Return to this world with knowledge, energy, or other things, potentially channelling them into this world.
Shamanic (and neo-shamanic) practitioners are often described as having been modified or rearranged by God/the gods in a way to make them suitable for this work, often by way of a shamanic sickness where one must fully accept the burden and heal themselves, or die.
I now turn my attention to plurality/multiplicity. I talked a little about it here. People define these terms in different ways, but my own definition is, as I stated near the top, that a person has access to one or more others (or Others) within, whether that "within" really exists somewhere outside of the person or not, in a persistent way, often called a plural system. Those Others (or "headmates") may come and go, but there is a persistence to the system itself. They may or may not "front" (or take the reins of the shared body).
There are three basic kinds that I wish to speak of here, in conjunction with shamanism:
a) Access to headmates, but no other-world.
b) Access to a populated other-world, but no headmates per se.
c) Access to headmates which live in an other-world.
I make a distinction here between headmates vs other-world population (or denizens, if you like) in that headmates take a persistent role in the plural system's workings, hanging out closer to this world or otherwise joining a virtual family centred around the system itself.
The common way to speak to headmates or denizens, or to interact with an other-world, is generally describable as looking inward. Or looking outward. Or basically paying attention to something other than what's here in this world. In the case of visiting a head/other-space (B or C above), it can be an altered state of consciousness that is anywhere from a light paying attention to something other-worldly up to a deep trance state where one's full attention is on that place and those people, up to having sleep paralysis when one returns.
It is also the case that some plural systems come about as a result of trauma, and they must find self-healing in finding an equilibrium, a healthy communication, and a new way of being. Even non-traumatised plural systems often have to go through this process, if more gently.
And one of the more common (though not universal) traits of a plural system is that headmates may "front" (or take the reins of the shared body). By anyone's definition, that is a direct kind of channelling energies from that other-space to this world.
So, pulling these two concepts together... as someone who has practised both, I am not sure that they are exactly the same thing; for example, some members of plural systems talk about having had neo-shamanic journeys that aren't their head/other-space. (Though I've personally experienced segmented head/other-spaces that are not connected, and maybe it's that.) But I think there is a very striking similarity to the two things. It's quite possible that people who are good at (neo-)shamanism are people who have some or all of the wiring to be part of a plural system, too, and vice versa. The concept and the actions and "motions" behind journeying, speaking to guides, and bringing things back are very similar to the "motions" behind visiting a head/other-space, speaking with headmates and denizens, and bringing things back. I think that applies to all the listed types of plural system above, really, with type B perhaps being the closest.
And quite frankly, the correlation in people I've known who practise some kind of neo-shamanism, and having some form of plurality, is kind of astonishing. It's a personal anecdote, but it's striking.
Case in point, I made my beginnings while doing neo-shamanic journeying, and the place that I visited became clearer and more persistent to my perception; and several of the guides I met there have become much closer (and thus more like headmates). Now I consider myself part of a plural system, and those guides visit here too. Is it that, or is it that I've become an open conduit to a shamanic myth-world in which I've found guides? I don't really know, and I'm not sure it matters, really. The result is that I have frequent contact with Dove and Sparrow, and there are many others (who have archetypical/mythic names of a type commonly associated with shamanic guides, like the Oracle, and Wolf). And in the tradition of (neo-)shamanism, these people have helped me, guided me, and helped me to help and guide and heal others around me and online.
This is really one reason why I get upset when people describe plurality/multiplicity as a disease. Is having a persistent connection to a spirit world, and the ability to visit it and talk to its guides a disease? No. It's a gift.
And however you want to define these things, I think putting specific words to them or categorising them is less important than seeing what is there and how it may be used to help yourself and others. Exploring these connections is part of my calling.
And that is all, of course, a big opinion piece. :) But I hope that it's more clear why I am drawing these parallels and how they might benefit people who practise all of these various ways of communing with intelligences and spirits and Others besides themselves.
(Definitions)
I've drawn a lot of parallels between various modes of magic and being on here, including speaking to spirits, praying, animism, plurality/multiplicity, and neo-shamanic journeying. I admit it's a hand-waving sort of discourse, but I mostly want to point out that these things are not such vastly different exercises as people often think. They aren't the same thing (IMO), but they do share a number of traits, and there's a commonality running between them: there is one body out here, and more than one person in communication in there. This is what I call plural magic, wherever it "comes from".
I also believe that we can use these congruencies and similarities to learn from different modes of working, and that we can sometimes even pick up a new method for something that we do, which was previously applied only to another mode. For example, the same methods one might use to improve communication with a plural headmate may also be very useful when trying to increase the clarity with which one can speak to animistic spirits or deities. They're not the same thing, but they have congruencies from which we can synthesise new methods.
This, to me, is what's so exciting about the concept of this group. So! Today I wish to write about neo-shamanism and plurality cross-overs.
I think it's helpful to define these terms first.
I speak of neo-shamanism here because shamanism itself describes a particular aboriginal custom spread through (according to Wikipedia) eastern Europe through parts of the Middle East and on into Russia and Siberia. Wikipedia on Shamanism.
I'm going to quote Wikipedia's definition of shamanism, because I think it's illustrative:
Shamanism is a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to encounter and interact with the spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world. A shaman is a person regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing.
I define neo-shamanism as the modernised, westernised version of this practice. There is a commonly accepted practice that is basically:
a) Enter an altered state of consciousness. Depending on the person, this could be anywhere from a self-induced hypnotic type trance (looking deeply inward) to using mind-altering substances. The deeper states of even the self-induced hypnotic variety may result in sleep paralysis and similar issues upon return.
b) Visit an upper (transcendent), middle (earthly), or lower (mythical/archetypical) world.
c) Speak to guides (spirits).
d) Return to this world with knowledge, energy, or other things, potentially channelling them into this world.
Shamanic (and neo-shamanic) practitioners are often described as having been modified or rearranged by God/the gods in a way to make them suitable for this work, often by way of a shamanic sickness where one must fully accept the burden and heal themselves, or die.
I now turn my attention to plurality/multiplicity. I talked a little about it here. People define these terms in different ways, but my own definition is, as I stated near the top, that a person has access to one or more others (or Others) within, whether that "within" really exists somewhere outside of the person or not, in a persistent way, often called a plural system. Those Others (or "headmates") may come and go, but there is a persistence to the system itself. They may or may not "front" (or take the reins of the shared body).
There are three basic kinds that I wish to speak of here, in conjunction with shamanism:
a) Access to headmates, but no other-world.
b) Access to a populated other-world, but no headmates per se.
c) Access to headmates which live in an other-world.
I make a distinction here between headmates vs other-world population (or denizens, if you like) in that headmates take a persistent role in the plural system's workings, hanging out closer to this world or otherwise joining a virtual family centred around the system itself.
The common way to speak to headmates or denizens, or to interact with an other-world, is generally describable as looking inward. Or looking outward. Or basically paying attention to something other than what's here in this world. In the case of visiting a head/other-space (B or C above), it can be an altered state of consciousness that is anywhere from a light paying attention to something other-worldly up to a deep trance state where one's full attention is on that place and those people, up to having sleep paralysis when one returns.
It is also the case that some plural systems come about as a result of trauma, and they must find self-healing in finding an equilibrium, a healthy communication, and a new way of being. Even non-traumatised plural systems often have to go through this process, if more gently.
And one of the more common (though not universal) traits of a plural system is that headmates may "front" (or take the reins of the shared body). By anyone's definition, that is a direct kind of channelling energies from that other-space to this world.
So, pulling these two concepts together... as someone who has practised both, I am not sure that they are exactly the same thing; for example, some members of plural systems talk about having had neo-shamanic journeys that aren't their head/other-space. (Though I've personally experienced segmented head/other-spaces that are not connected, and maybe it's that.) But I think there is a very striking similarity to the two things. It's quite possible that people who are good at (neo-)shamanism are people who have some or all of the wiring to be part of a plural system, too, and vice versa. The concept and the actions and "motions" behind journeying, speaking to guides, and bringing things back are very similar to the "motions" behind visiting a head/other-space, speaking with headmates and denizens, and bringing things back. I think that applies to all the listed types of plural system above, really, with type B perhaps being the closest.
And quite frankly, the correlation in people I've known who practise some kind of neo-shamanism, and having some form of plurality, is kind of astonishing. It's a personal anecdote, but it's striking.
Case in point, I made my beginnings while doing neo-shamanic journeying, and the place that I visited became clearer and more persistent to my perception; and several of the guides I met there have become much closer (and thus more like headmates). Now I consider myself part of a plural system, and those guides visit here too. Is it that, or is it that I've become an open conduit to a shamanic myth-world in which I've found guides? I don't really know, and I'm not sure it matters, really. The result is that I have frequent contact with Dove and Sparrow, and there are many others (who have archetypical/mythic names of a type commonly associated with shamanic guides, like the Oracle, and Wolf). And in the tradition of (neo-)shamanism, these people have helped me, guided me, and helped me to help and guide and heal others around me and online.
This is really one reason why I get upset when people describe plurality/multiplicity as a disease. Is having a persistent connection to a spirit world, and the ability to visit it and talk to its guides a disease? No. It's a gift.
And however you want to define these things, I think putting specific words to them or categorising them is less important than seeing what is there and how it may be used to help yourself and others. Exploring these connections is part of my calling.
And that is all, of course, a big opinion piece. :) But I hope that it's more clear why I am drawing these parallels and how they might benefit people who practise all of these various ways of communing with intelligences and spirits and Others besides themselves.
(Definitions)