Since language is so obstinate and short sighted, I use the word “shaman” as a source of information which is used by one entity to capture once-independent intellects for his, her, or its own purposes. But, since, in the end, to protect its place in society or spiritualized knowledge, it will eventually turn to incredibly malicious means for that purpose (think fear and hell, etc.)

The last thing I want to be is my own shaman. I suppose, if I had to choose a word from our shortened language for the purpose of the “brights,” I would have preferred the words “freedom” or “liberty.” Although, it would probably be better to create a word and definition, with the definition so narrow in scope, such arguments about what the word implies, in so many different minds, would be ridiculous.

Oh yes, eventually, the philosopher becomes the shaman. And the beautiful thing about philosophical argument is: there is unlimited room for an unlimited number of shamans — sort of an equal opportunity black hole.

In modern times, the practice is not personally so dangerous as it was, for instance, during the Age of Darkness (absolutism by Faith). Just think, before that time, philosophy argument was a source of grand public entertainment — well, except for a cup of hemlock or two.

Now, of course, not many ordinary human minds can travel that journey. Intellectual laziness is king now — absolutism by Faith is once again on the march.

Terry

The invitation is to becomes ones own Shaman.

To me, it is easy. Over 35 years ago I dumped my world view — all of it. Since, I have been developing one of my own (none of that inherited crap). And, I try extremely hard to check out the rationality and reality of anything I do add; some with an asterisk, that, when constructed upon a preponderance of evidence, patiently waits for more.

My race now is the human race; my class is the human class; my religion is reality as best I can determine it, based only upon evidence from the natural world — there is none other in the natural world.

And under no conditions will I enslave or surrender my own intellect to a shaman, no matter how ordained.

Terry

For the record, this is most certainly NOT the case in British universities, where an atheist or agnostic conventional wisdom rules supreme, sometimes quite arrogantly. I know quite a few practicing Christians working in science faculties of Russell group universities, not one of whom has “come out” to his or her colleagues. Love of God is the love that dare not speak its name in contemporary British higher education.

Even so, it still seems to be only those who start out with a dislike who insist on bringing the “intelligent” meaning of “bright” to prominence, and then refusing to let go of it. Other people tend to be more interested in what brights are like as people and rapidly find that we don’t assume we are more intelligent, and so dismiss this meaning from their understanding of it. I personally prefer the company of the brights I know because on the whole they put their ideological differences to one side and get on with being friendly. It’s the “whiff of arrogance” that I get from much atheist discussion that put me off calling myself one for most of my 53 years. I didn’t start calling myself and atheist until I’d come across the Brights and found that a lot of atheists were actually nice people.

Well we brights generally expect people to be “bright” enough to see that there are multiple intentions in the choice of word. It’s not like we are hiding the dictionary from everyone or something. The slight whiff of arrogance and thus controversy is valuable in making the word in its new connotation memorable.

But choosing ANY word with a positive interpretation would have the same result. You didn’t really expect us to choose a negative word to denote ourselves, did you?

“Shifty” No, just bright.

– TWZ