Determining Persons in Animism

[Quintessence]

Cruising through G. Harvey's Animism: Respecting the Living World, the following discussion topic came to mind. Harvey observes in a variety of animistic societies that some, but not all things, out there in the world are regarded as persons by any given culture. Animists assign personhood to more things than a non-animist does - there are bird persons, rock persons, tree persons, and so forth, in addition to the more universally recognized human persons. Even with this expanded understanding of persons, an animist still recognizes some things, but not others, as persons. How does an animist determine who is and is not a person?

Harvey provides his own thoughts, but if you are an animist yourself, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I know we don't have many animists on board (going to tag @beenherebeforeagain to make sure they see this topic), but let's see if we can get something going! I might throw out a sister thread to this one in the main forums asking the non-animists why they don't regard something to be a person unless it is human.

 

[Politesse]

I have enjoyed learning about different versions of this as I've wandered the world. The variety in tellings makes me wonder, often, how good a term "animism" is if it describes so many very different perspectives! Up in the north of my state, a gentleman of mixed tribal ancestry told me that it was really just a few important spirits, the ones mentioned in mythology and the ones people hunt to eat, who have souls and transmigrate back into their herds when they die. Mostly "animals" but that is a Westerner word; the more important distinction was the role the person in question plays spiritually, and the short list included very important person of Wind for instance.

Chatting with one of my southeast Asian students (I believe she was Hmong), she informed me that in her family, literally everything was said to have souls. Yes, souls- a human had a thousand each. It was a very textured world. Yet most of my Hmong students ascribe only one soul to people and animals. There is a lot of variation, then! And you run up against problems of translation, since English has its own implied system (one may deny belief in "souls", but what does the term "animate" or "inanimate" mean? It's actually a pretty arbitrary system if you think about it- and so is everyone's).

Myself, I find it wise to default to treating the forces around me as persons, be they animal vegetable or mineral. Treating the world as worthy of personal respect makes you a better and safer person whether or not you are right.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cruising through G. Harvey's Animism: Respecting the Living World, the following discussion topic came to mind. Harvey observes in a variety of animistic societies that some, but not all things, out there in the world are regarded as persons by any given culture. Animists assign personhood to more things than a non-animist does - there are bird persons, rock persons, tree persons, and so forth, in addition to the more universally recognized human persons. Even with this expanded understanding of persons, an animist still recognizes some things, but not others, as persons. How does an animist determine who is and is not a person?

Harvey provides his own thoughts, but if you are an animist yourself, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I know we don't have many animists on board (going to tag @beenherebeforeagain to make sure they see this topic), but let's see if we can get something going! I might throw out a sister thread to this one in the main forums asking the non-animists why they don't regard something to be a person unless it is human.

I believe all nature, people, and objects have spirits. I believe spirits are those who have passed and whereevrr their physical body died is where their spirit (not metaphor) is. I also believe that objects we own carry our spirits. When we leave our possession behind, we are still there. Hence why I heavily believe in pictures, statues, etc having the actual spirit of whomever Im working with. Nature as well as objects.

That said.

I dont know if this answers the question, but all have spirits/are persons. Elaborate on how an animist (I guess as defined?) can find objects or nature without spirits in order to answer the difference between the two?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Excellent, @Quintessence , and good response, @Politesse ! and @Carlita !

From my perspective, everything is/has spirit, and is therefore worthy of respect. However, humans don't interact with most things, at least not directly, and therefore we don't need to be as particular about our relationships with most of them--not that we shouldn't be respectful anyway; and for the most part, our "civilized" way of dealing with the world is considerably less than respectful, even with the things we depend on for our lives. We need to be more respectful of the kin in our environment, ALL of them--but especially those who directly benefit us or harm us.

I get that some animists only see SOME of the potential persons out there as persons they actually are concerned about...that's no different than humans being more concerned about their family, friends and neighbors more than they are about people living on the other side of the planet, at least from my perspective.

That said, I have no real theory about what spirit is, how many there are, what kinds there are, and how many can dance on the head of pin, and the like. I entertain the idea that Dark Matter is actually spirit, but that is pure speculation, trying to fit it into a Western kind of concept. Another hypothesis is that I suspect that along with normal matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, there is another more subtle "thing" that is spirit, that is also at the same time part of NM, DM and DE.

From what I've read about Animism in the last few years, I'm no longer sure that it is a useful term...much like so many other terms we have for various concepts related to religion--or in fact, anything--when one starts to look close, there is a lot of nuance and difference that gets pulled together. I don't know what other terms might replace Animism and the different ways different people see it. But at the current time, it's the only word that I've found that I think could be appropriate to describing my beliefs and behaviors--even though the "dictionary" definition is definitely NOT what I'm about.

 

[Quintessence]

I have enjoyed learning about different versions of this as I've wandered the world. The variety in tellings makes me wonder, often, how good a term "animism" is if it describes so many very different perspectives!

One of the problems with discourse on the topic of religions is that our vocabulary has inherited a strong bias towards monotheist and Christian language and thought. So many terms - atheist, animist, pagan, polytheist - were terms created by the "in group" Christian norm to describe outsiders or an "out groups" and were poorly understood at the time these terms originated. As a result, these terms lump in a bunch of things together that probably shouldn't be, and are ill-defined terms on the whole. It's easy to be blind to that... especially when we're not exposed to other cultures and fail to listen to them on their own terms. It's awesome that you've had the experiences you've had - not many can claim those.

Up in the north of my state, a gentleman of mixed tribal ancestry told me that it was really just a few important spirits, the ones mentioned in mythology and the ones people hunt to eat, who have souls and transmigrate back into their herds when they die. Mostly "animals" but that is a Westerner word; the more important distinction was the role the person in question plays spiritually, and the short list included very important person of Wind for instance.

On the whole I get the impression that the animist mindset focuses more on relationships (which includes things like roles), rather on the whole "subject-object" thing. Might we say that part of what designates "personhood" in animism is that there's a recognition of an important relationship the people have to the thing in question?

Chatting with one of my southeast Asian students (I believe she was Hmong), she informed me that in her family, literally everything was said to have souls. Yes, souls- a human had a thousand each. It was a very textured world. Yet most of my Hmong students ascribe only one soul to people and animals. There is a lot of variation, then! And you run up against problems of translation, since English has its own implied system (one may deny belief in "souls", but what does the term "animate" or "inanimate" mean? It's actually a pretty arbitrary system if you think about it- and so is everyone's).

The understanding of terms like "soul" and "spirit" has been another point of discussion in the book I'm reading. When people say these words, it's assumed that these terms mean what they would in a Christian context - such as something only being able to have one soul, and it having particular characteristics. I recall a line somewhere in the book talking about how Western culture tends to think of people "having" souls, whereas in some animist cultures, it would be more appropriate to say that people "are" souls. This, of course, means we can't think of "soul" as being purely immaterial or disembodied - and regarding "soul" as non-supernatural is a characteristic of some animistic societies too.

Myself, I find it wise to default to treating the forces around me as persons, be they animal vegetable or mineral. Treating the world as worthy of personal respect makes you a better and safer person whether or not you are right.

I hear this said, but wonder how true it is. I mean, I would like to believe it is true, but I've obviously got some strong personal biases there. I think we can say it leads to a very different way of regarding the world than is typical of Western culture. Suddenly a concept like death becomes a great deal more complicated when so many more things are regarded as "alive" - death becomes a transformation rather than a "the end."

 

[Quintessence]

I believe all nature, people, and objects have spirits. I believe spirits are those who have passed and whereevrr their physical body died is where their spirit (not metaphor) is. I also believe that objects we own carry our spirits. When we leave our possession behind, we are still there. Hence why I heavily believe in pictures, statues, etc having the actual spirit of whomever Im working with. Nature as well as objects.

Could you clarify how you are using the term "spirit" here? Want to make sure I'm interpreting this in the manner you intended.

I dont know if this answers the question, but all have spirits/are persons. Elaborate on how an animist (I guess as defined?) can find objects or nature without spirits in order to answer the difference between the two?

I think the question of animism centers around regarding non-humans as persons - as in subjects rather than objects. This may or may not be because they are seen to have a "spirit" or "soul" - two terms that can be problematic when applied to animism given the connotations they have in Western culture may not apply well. I used to use an early definition of animism - "animism is the belief that all things have a soul/spirit" - but have been finding that inadequate... and finding it more inadequate as I read Harvey's work. When and why do we regard something as a subject rather than an object? When and why do we treat it as a person - which implies being worthy of ethical consideration, regard, important relations, etc? When is a fork not "merely" a fork, but an entity worthy of regard?

 

[Quintessence]

From my perspective, everything is/has spirit, and is therefore worthy of respect.

I'll ask here the same question I asked Carlita. I know you say further on you have "no real theory about what spirit is," but what does that term "spirit" mean as you're using it, and what about that term makes something worthy of respect?

From what I've read about Animism in the last few years, I'm no longer sure that it is a useful term...much like so many other terms we have for various concepts related to religion--or in fact, anything--when one starts to look close, there is a lot of nuance and difference that gets pulled together. I don't know what other terms might replace Animism and the different ways different people see it. But at the current time, it's the only word that I've found that I think could be appropriate to describing my beliefs and behaviors--even though the "dictionary" definition is definitely NOT what I'm about.

I think I'm starting to catch up to where you're at. I'm already throughly sick of the "theist" and "atheist" dichotomy, which I now regard as a false one. If I paid more attention to the latest Pagan squabbles, I'm sure I'd be thoroughly sick of the "Pagan" vs "Polytheist" dialogue too. But since I thought it would be fun, I popped open the Oxford English Dictionary to see how they define animism. It's actually not terrible - far superior to what you'll find in a standard dictionary:

"1. Philos. Any of various theories postulating that an animating principle, as distinct from physical processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), directs the energy that moves living beings and governs their growth and evolution; = vitalism n.
2. The attribution of life and personality (and sometimes a soul) to inanimate objects and natural phenomena; = animatism n.
3. Spiritualism and Philos. Belief in the existence of a spiritual world, and of soul or spirit apart from matter; spiritualism as opposed to materialism."
​

Compare that to Merriam-Webster, who amusingly considers this an "occult" term and offers suggestions of other "occult" terms to look into like "augry" and "metempsychosis":

1. a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit
2. attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3. belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies
   

Bleh. Standard dictionaries suck. Neither of them really capture the religiosity of animism, but no dictionary is going to do that. Considering a book or ten could be written about various types of animism, it'd be unreasonable to expect so.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

EDIT: okay, I wrote this before you posted #7...

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I consider "spirit" to be "verbs" rather than "noun/pronoun/subject/object"

And the relational--adjectives, prepositions and adverbs--seems to me what's more important than what the subject/object/noun/pronoun is...the Western separation of observer from the observed, the abstraction of experience into concept, the participant from its environment, and so on.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'll ask here the same question I asked Carlita. I know you say further on you have "no real theory about what spirit is," but what does that term "spirit" mean as you're using it, and what about that term makes something worthy of respect?



I think I'm starting to catch up to where you're at. I'm already throughly sick of the "theist" and "atheist" dichotomy, which I now regard as a false one. If I paid more attention to the latest Pagan squabbles, I'm sure I'd be thoroughly sick of the "Pagan" vs "Polytheist" dialogue too. But since I thought it would be fun, I popped open the Oxford English Dictionary to see how they define animism. It's actually not terrible - far superior to what you'll find in a standard dictionary:

"1. Philos. Any of various theories postulating that an animating principle, as distinct from physical processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), directs the energy that moves living beings and governs their growth and evolution; = vitalism n.
2. The attribution of life and personality (and sometimes a soul) to inanimate objects and natural phenomena; = animatism n.
3. Spiritualism and Philos. Belief in the existence of a spiritual world, and of soul or spirit apart from matter; spiritualism as opposed to materialism."
​

Compare that to Merriam-Webster, who amusingly considers this an "occult" term and offers suggestions of other "occult" terms to look into like "augry" and "metempsychosis":

1. a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit
2. attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3. belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies

Bleh. Standard dictionaries suck. Neither of them really capture the religiosity of animism, but no dictionary is going to do that. Considering a book or ten could be written about various types of animism, it'd be unreasonable to expect so.

I'm still not sure how to answer this. There probably isn't just one, or one kind; I don't think of them often in the Western sense of a "soul" or a singular for an individual much anymore, except as a shorthand while thinking, writing or speaking. Spirit is what does and what experiences and what interacts. I encounter all kinds of them; I see some fairly clearly sometimes, other times feel them, or hear, on occasion smell...they can be in, associated with, or near an object...but they might also be separate from any detectable "thing." It's a lot like trying to describe a "mystical" experience...we just don't have words that point in the right directions a lot of the time.

As for the dictionary definitions...there is no "separate" animating principle, no "separate" from the body...at least not in the Western sense that I understand them to be meaning...

There's a whole lot of Western baggage behind "conscious" as well...I prefer the term "volition" although it's not quite right either; responsiveness is also in there...

And, I believe (but have no way of proving) that spirit worlds exist. We--or at least I--experience them from time to time. Other dimensions? Astral levels? Upper World and Lower World? There's lots of terms for them.

Does this help?

 

[Politesse]

What a great thread!

I note that the gentleman who coined the phrase animism to begin with, pioneering anthropologist E.B. Tylor, cannot have known very many animists personally; he was going off other people's notes (read: soldiers and missionaries) said about what other folks believed. Given that neither atheism nor theism obviously applied to the animist perspective, he was entirely right to open up a third "big category" of beliefs. It usually is the case that when you look at things more closely, there are diversities you hadn't thought about lurking inside a concept like theism or animism. It wouldn't have been obvious to Tylor, but it should be to us.

But in this case, there are so many differences even in what is basically being considered. I think I would want to section off at least three trends within "animism", two of which we haven't even discussed here yet: those who see spirits as a kind of incidental, mostly malevolent force that only exists in certain places; those who treat spirits essentially as another natural species that is all over the place but not tied to any particular physical objects, and those like the ones discussed in this thread who see spirits as sort of (however problematically) like souls attached very strongly and maybe indivisibly to living persons. All three types of belief are often called animism despite implying fundamentally different cosmologies.

 

[Politesse]

One of the problems with discourse on the topic of religions is that our vocabulary has inherited a strong bias towards monotheist and Christian language and thought. So many terms - atheist, animist, pagan, polytheist - were terms created by the "in group" Christian norm to describe outsiders or an "out groups" and were poorly understood at the time these terms originated. As a result, these terms lump in a bunch of things together that probably shouldn't be, and are ill-defined terms on the whole. It's easy to be blind to that... especially when we're not exposed to other cultures and fail to listen to them on their own terms. It's awesome that you've had the experiences you've had - not many can claim those.

Well, that's why I went in to this line of work . It is quite true that Christonormativity has shaped this discussion considerably, especially among English-speakers. I have noticed that Chinese scholars do the same thing (it seems to me at least) with Taoist and Confucian terminology, applying them maybe more or less critically to the cosmologies of others, animists not the least. Like with "soul" this can end up putting way too much importance and ontological weight on fragile local concepts of spirits, souls, and ghosts. And even here on RF, I have noticed conversations between Hindu and Christian getting into confused derails around the too-quickly translated soul/atman. Or religion/dharma.

On the whole I get the impression that the animist mindset focuses more on relationships (which includes things like roles), rather on the whole "subject-object" thing. Might we say that part of what designates "personhood" in animism is that there's a recognition of an important relationship the people have to the thing in question?

I certainly agree with this. Asking what a spirit is can get you some blank looks sometimes. But don't get too carried away. Spatial metaphors are neither absent nor useless in defining that relationship. So an animist talking about the sun may well be talking about an ontologically present thing, not just our relationship to heat and light.

The understanding of terms like "soul" and "spirit" has been another point of discussion in the book I'm reading. When people say these words, it's assumed that these terms mean what they would in a Christian context - such as something only being able to have one soul, and it having particular characteristics. I recall a line somewhere in the book talking about how Western culture tends to think of people "having" souls, whereas in some animist cultures, it would be more appropriate to say that people "are" souls. This, of course, means we can't think of "soul" as being purely immaterial or disembodied - and regarding "soul" as non-supernatural is a characteristic of some animistic societies too.

Also very true. One of my absolute favorite books, on any subject, is Jill Furst's "Natural History of the Soul in Ancient Mexico". The main topic is that she wanted to understand Mexica (Aztec) cosmology on its own terms. But getting to those terms meant piecing apart a lot of Spanish sources that badly conflated these terms. So to the indigenous Mexican, there was and is a lot of difference between "tonal", one's supernatural destiny or directionality perhaps, and "yolia", the animating force of the physical body - neither term is easily translatable into another language, and both are routinely translated as "soul" by invading Catholic missionaries. With confusing and sometimes even amusing results (trying to talk about "tonal" without understanding it fully can lead a missionary into accidentally preaching predestination theology for instance, or implying that death is ontologically identical to life).

I hear this said, but wonder how true it is. I mean, I would like to believe it is true, but I've obviously got some strong personal biases there. I think we can say it leads to a very different way of regarding the world than is typical of Western culture. Suddenly a concept like death becomes a great deal more complicated when so many more things are regarded as "alive" - death becomes a transformation rather than a "the end."

Maybe! Sometimes spirits are understood as dead people, straight up. Other animists are essentially monists, and assume a spirit to have perished along with the body.

I tend to believe in erring on the side of caution, though. If I treat rocks as potential persons, then if I am wrong I've still treated the world a bit more respectfully and that is usually a good thing. If I'm right, then there may be an interesting lesson to learn or friendship to cultivate. It has worked well for me so far.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Standard dictionaries suck.

I just had to quote this because I know many animist have different definitions of spirits and souls and how they relate to people and objects. I agree with @beenherebeforeagain (#4) that the word animist may not even be the correct word to use.

Could you clarify how you are using the term "spirit" here? Want to make sure I'm interpreting this in the manner you intended

Western meaning and words influence how I define things, unfortunately. You'll have to forgive me as I try to steer away from that while making this crisp.

S-pirit: Is a deceased person.

Soul: Is the nature of the deceased and living person

Edit: s-pirit also means the "breath" that keeps the Spirit/person alive (the life of a person's soul). The umpff behind what makes plants grow. In it's basic terms and, I guess materialistic terms, [spiritual] energy.

I don't use soul that much because it just seems common sense that everyone has "the breathe of life" that even to talk about it is like talking about whether I exist or not while I'm talking. Then again, philosophical wise, it's a good question to ask.

This stuck out:

I recall a line somewhere in the book talking about how Western culture tends to think of people "having" souls, whereas in some animist cultures, it would be more appropriate to say that people "are" souls. This, of course, means we can't think of "soul" as being purely immaterial or disembodied - and regarding "soul" as non-supernatural is a characteristic of some animistic societies too.

I think this is pretty interesting. I don't see Western culture as downsided as others (in general); and, I do use the definition that everyone and everything has a soul rather than are souls.

However, I do think people and objects being souls is a more personal way of connecting to a said object, living person, or spirit.

The last part you said: "...and regarding "soul" as non-supernatural is a characteristic of some animist societies too."

I actually haven't heard of that. I guess when supernatural is used by Western definition, that could be true. If I used the term supernatural, it is just defining another aspect of life just as I would talk about, I don't know, philosophy.

Though, I actually agree with that conclusion. My family and I never thought of the supernatural as separate than the natural. So, to call a soul supernatural is odd. I don't know why we separate the two. Maybe it is because it is a mysterious field or subject to talk about the mysteries of the unknown? To ponder the philosophy of "what if there is a god and what is the nature of this god" type of thing? I wouldn't know.

Then and why do we regard something as a subject rather than an object? When and why do we treat it as a person - which implies being worthy of ethical consideration, regard, important relations, etc? When is a fork not "merely" a fork, but an entity worthy of regard?

I treat objects as persons (well, I try to respect objects as well as people but our culture displaces objects in favor of people) with respect and for many, value the sacredness of the spirits within the said objects I use in worship.

Why do we treat the subject as a person rather than an object?

It's like you said above that many animist seem to see objects as souls rather than having souls. As such, when we view objects, we view them as people and the same respect I would show you and my mother, I'd show for that object. As with people, spirits have different relationships with the person interacting with them. So, of course my level of respect for you would differ than my mother's. However, it is still respect.

As for objects, a fork doesn't have a personal connection with me than say my father's picture or a rock I may keep on my altar which comes from my grandmother's resting place. The cornbread my grandmother used to fix for the family holds a intimate connection with me while a piece of pizza is like a stranger.

Yet, I offer both pieces as first food to the spirits, ancestors, and my grandmothers regardless. It shows unconditional love.



I know this is a bit of a ramble. I appreciate your questions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

okay, I've been mulling this over. I think for a human to recognize a non-human...or even another human...as a person or a other-than-human-person, that individual (often through the culture they live in) has to identify that "thing" as a person. The way different people divide up the "things" in their environment is likely going to be very different between cultures.

That said, we do have to recognize the possibility that, just as relationships between human people exist primarily within the minds of the humans involved in that relationship, so too the relationship between humans and other-than-human-persons may exist entirely or primarily within the minds of the participants--which might mean only in the minds of human persons, at least as we think of it in English and Western thought.

So, what do I recognize as "person" of the same level as a human? I'm really not sure how to answer that question. I'm going to have to think about it more because it's late and I need to go to sleep.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

EDIT: okay, I wrote this before you posted #7...

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I consider "spirit" to be "verbs" rather than "noun/pronoun/subject/object"

And the relational--adjectives, prepositions and adverbs--seems to me what's more important than what the subject/object/noun/pronoun is...the Western separation of observer from the observed, the abstraction of experience into concept, the participant from its environment, and so on.

Hmm. How would you say that in a sentense when you refer to spirit as a verb? Can you give an example?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Hmm. How would you say that in a sentense when you refer to spirit as a verb? Can you give an example?

lol! not sure how well I can do that...but I'll try...

The English language is structured around Who does What to Whom (Subject, Verb, Object). If John ate the bacon, the spirit of the interaction was the eating; the relationship is the "does what" part of the sentence. If "Mary is dancing" it's a simple statement about what that particular person's spirit is doing with her physical body at the moment; it leaves unexpressed the particulars of WHY the person was doing that, but it what they were doing. If I go hunting (admittedly something I haven't done much of for years), the "go hunting" verb implies a certain relationship between the objects (me, the game species/individual) that rolls behaviors, expectations, intentions and purpose together--it represents volition, the ability to choose and act.

As a Westerner, I have and probably most people who do hunt here treat themselves as having volition, and their target as being of limited volition, is simply the object of one's intention and is an unwilling participant in the hunt. As an animist, however, I believe and act as if my target is a willing partner in the action, the hunt, because I do the rituals to call out to its spirit to be available, to make the sacrifice so that we both may continue in the circle of life; I thank them and their kind (who are my kin), and remind them that me and my kind will one day be food for others, including them and their kind, in the great circle.

The whole concept of subject and object, being things, is based on a certain view of the world, that we are some sort of permanent arrangement that we can consider to be separate and different from others. Instead, I see everything as a process, a temporary (although temporary may mean millions or billions of years in some cases) patterning of matter and energy--we humans are a continuous flow of atoms and energy into, in, and back out of the body--all the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in your body at this moment will be gone, replaced, within just a few weeks...and yet, you are still you when 70 percent of your constituent atoms have been replaced...The functions of the body continue, as our "parts" get cycled in and out, and into and out of other persons in the environment--the land, the waters, the air, plants, animals, and so on...We are not objects, we are verbs, action and change, intimately connected to the rest of the system we live in.

Does that over-answer your question?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This took me awhile to think this over.

Does that over-answer your question?

Maybe so.

..act of one's intention and is an unwilling participant in the hunt. As an animist, however, I believe and act as if my target is a willing partner in the action, the hunt, because I do the rituals to call out to its spirit to be available, to make the sacrifice so that we both may continue in the circle of life; I thank them and their kind (who are my kin), and remind them that me and my kind will one day be food for others, including them and their kind, in the great circle.

That is foreign to my western ears. I used to hunt with my father. He did it for a living; but, he saw the hunt as game (far as I can tell). I would safely assume that we arent a willing partners but a sacrifical partners. Exchanging the word "want" (it makes me think people want to kill to live as if they had a choice to) with need. Thats my humble opinion. Then, Im not a hunter.

I guess how I see it is if I do kill for food, its more Im saying I give you my life and you give me yours. Sacrificial meal. (Dont think too much into it pweese).

We are not objects, we are verbs, action and change, intimately connected to the rest of the system we live in.

I like this. We do change and flow. It reminds me of a heated debate I had on a Buddhist forum (another site). I told them I believe we all have a perminate, true nature. What makes you, you. Atoms flow everywhere and every which a way and we still know Sandy is Sandy and Sara is Sara even though they are twins. Different fingerprints.

Connecting it to spirit, I like how you work with the spirit of the person in worship rather than the object as the spirit. Makes it more personal. I havent defined it for myself, but that is what I do in prayer. I pray for someone by being the spirit of that person.

Then again, thats a touch and go given I see spirit as who someone is and from how I read your post, you see it as the action that person does.

Can it be both or are they different, you think?

Other comments welcomed. Hint hint.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This took me awhile to think this over.


Maybe so.


That is foreign to my western ears. I used to hunt with my father. He did it for a living; but, he saw the hunt as game (far as I can tell). I would safely assume that we arent a willing partners but a sacrifical partners. Exchanging the word "want" (it makes me think people want to kill to live as if they had a choice to) with need. Thats my humble opinion. Then, Im not a hunter.

I guess how I see it is if I do kill for food, its more Im saying I give you my life and you give me yours. Sacrificial meal. (Dont think too much into it pweese).


I like this. We do change and flow. It reminds me of a heated debate I had on a Buddhist forum (another site). I told them I believe we all have a perminate, true nature. What makes you, you. Atoms flow everywhere and every which a way and we still know Sandy is Sandy and Sara is Sara even though they are twins. Different fingerprints.

Connecting it to spirit, I like how you work with the spirit of the person in worship rather than the object as the spirit. Makes it more personal. I havent defined it for myself, but that is what I do in prayer. I pray for someone by being the spirit of that person.

Then again, thats a touch and go given I see spirit as who someone is and from how I read your post, you see it as the action that person does.

Can it be both or are they different, you think?

Other comments welcomed. Hint hint.

I think it can be both; probably many other ways, too. I'm still trying to wrap my head around these concepts, too, so I try not to think of it in either/or terms. One of the authors I've read talks about the Western "I think, therefore I am," and contrasts that to what he/she sees as the shamanistic/animistic "I relate, therefore I am." I think of the spirit as who the person is, but it has to relate to other spirits, so the actions, how it relates, is important, too, and I'm trying to get my mind to think that way, to focus on the relating more.

Yeah, the thing about hunting is something I'm working on understanding better. I didn't want to use the word sacrifice because of the Western/Christian connotation, even though I agree with you that it's there in the relationship between the hunter and the hunted. The individual may not really "want" to be taken, but the relationship of living means that fundamental spirit (sometimes characterized as an "overspirit" or collective spirit) understands the need of the sacrifice of the individual to keep the cycle of life going.

There are people who argue that we don't need to hunt and kill and eat meat anymore; I think we probably should be eating less meat, and probably different kinds--but I'm not sure about stopping altogether. I see us fitting into a system of life, a system of spirits (which may all together be one spirit--I don't know and not sure I believe that...or how I believe that...), and we have responsibilities to our kin, the other spirits here on earth: the land, water, air, plants, animals...all the different kinds of persons we have here. And we have a responsibility to our own kind, too--we need to seek a balance between us and our kin. A big part of that is if we would stop breeding like we do, and reduce our numbers and our other impacts as quickly as we can...I don't know, it gets complicated--if the others are persons, too, then we have too many human persons in the system right now--it's unbalanced.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it can be both; probably many other ways, too. I'm still trying to wrap my head around these concepts, too, so I try not to think of it in either/or terms. One of the authors I've read talks about the Western "I think, therefore I am," and contrasts that to what he/she sees as the shamanistic/animistic "I relate, therefore I am." I think of the spirit as who the person is, but it has to relate to other spirits, so the actions, how it relates, is important, too, and I'm trying to get my mind to think that way, to focus on the relating more.

Yeah, the thing about hunting is something I'm working on understanding better. I didn't want to use the word sacrifice because of the Western/Christian connotation, even though I agree with you that it's there in the relationship between the hunter and the hunted. The individual may not really "want" to be taken, but the relationship of living means that fundamental spirit (sometimes characterized as an "overspirit" or collective spirit) understands the need of the sacrifice of the individual to keep the cycle of life going.

There are people who argue that we don't need to hunt and kill and eat meat anymore; I think we probably should be eating less meat, and probably different kinds--but I'm not sure about stopping altogether. I see us fitting into a system of life, a system of spirits (which may all together be one spirit--I don't know and not sure I believe that...or how I believe that...), and we have responsibilities to our kin, the other spirits here on earth: the land, water, air, plants, animals...all the different kinds of persons we have here. And we have a responsibility to our own kind, too--we need to seek a balance between us and our kin. A big part of that is if we would stop breeding like we do, and reduce our numbers and our other impacts as quickly as we can...I don't know, it gets complicated--if the others are persons, too, then we have too many human persons in the system right now--it's unbalanced.

I was just rereading my reply to Quin, and caught this:

S-pirit: Is a deceased person.

Soul: Is the nature of the deceased and living person

Edit: s-pirit also means the "breath" that keeps the Spirit/person alive (the life of a person's soul). The umpff behind what makes plants grow. In it's basic terms and, I guess materialistic terms, [spiritual] energy.

If I compared it to how you see spirit, Spirit would be the person (or subject). Soul defines that subject based on his or her relations and what they did and do in their lives. s-pirit is the "breathe", the movement or action or energy that moves the soul to drive the Spirit.

S-pirit--> Car (gas included)
Soul-->Engine
s-pirit--> The inertia of pressing the petal and making the car go.

Dont ask me whose the driver. Never was part of my equation.

My Western mind seems to focus on Spirit because we are so used to refering to god as a person. So our objects and people of worship mix in our trying to pull away from that view (if desired) to another.

Ive never been comfortable "worshiping something/someone". To me, that sets an imbalance of everyone being equal of my respect, time, and just being a friend or family to them.

What I have been thinking about recently how to refer to Spirit and spirit (as I defined) collectively without personification.

Then you mentioned about western mind saying one thing (cant remember) and other cultures saying "I relate therefore I am" (weird. I remember that)

I havent heard it put like that. Ive been keeping in touch with family more, trying to unspiritualize/make special my spiritual practices, and take care of myself. Honoring the spirits each all day. Honoring my ancestors by candle morning and evening. Things like that.

Im trying to find how to build a relationship with people, my environment, etc rather than heirachy. Authority has always got me off balance because people take advantage of the role. The def. of family goes beyond that. Not authority. Elder.

Anyway.

Take your time. This is good convo. I think I get that on RF once in every decade.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was just rereading my reply to Quin, and caught this:



If I compared it to how you see spirit, Spirit would be the person (or subject). Soul defines that subject based on his or her relations and what they did and do in their lives. s-pirit is the "breathe", the movement or action or energy that moves the soul to drive the Spirit.

S-pirit--> Car (gas included)
Soul-->Engine
s-pirit--> The inertia of pressing the petal and making the car go.

Dont ask me whose the driver. Never was part of my equation.

My Western mind seems to focus on Spirit because we are so used to refering to god as a person. So our objects and people of worship mix in our trying to pull away from that view (if desired) to another.

Ive never been comfortable "worshiping something/someone". To me, that sets an imbalance of everyone being equal of my respect, time, and just being a friend or family to them.

What I have been thinking about recently how to refer to Spirit and spirit (as I defined) collectively without personification.

Then you mentioned about western mind saying one thing (cant remember) and other cultures saying "I relate therefore I am" (weird. I remember that)

I havent heard it put like that. Ive been keeping in touch with family more, trying to unspiritualize/make special my spiritual practices, and take care of myself. Honoring the spirits each all day. Honoring my ancestors by candle morning and evening. Things like that.

Im trying to find how to build a relationship with people, my environment, etc rather than heirachy. Authority has always got me off balance because people take advantage of the role. The def. of family goes beyond that. Not authority. Elder.

Anyway.

Take your time. This is good convo. I think I get that on RF once in every decade.

I like your analogy of the car; I don't think it's quite what I'm thinking, but it really doesn't matter, I don't think, because it works for you. Some of the other readings I've done recently suggest that the belief part of animism is really between the individual and the spirits themselves; the social part is the public performance of the appropriate rituals to maintain the correct relationships between the humans and the other-than-human persons. The performance requires no belief, just correct action, that is, respectful acknowledgement and interaction.

My preference is not worship, even though I recognize that some spirits are bigger/more powerful than me. I prefer to honor my kin, both small and large, as the friends/family they are--which or course does not mean that everyone is always happy with each other or likes each other--but respect really doesn't have anything to do with like or dislike, it's simply acknowledging the different places we have in the world and honoring the relationships we do have.

Yeah, how to refer to everything is a problem--hard enough to come to grips with the words we have in our language, and when they don't fit the experience, it gets much more difficult.

 

[Quintessence]

There are people who argue that we don't need to hunt and kill and eat meat anymore; I think we probably should be eating less meat, and probably different kinds--but I'm not sure about stopping altogether. I see us fitting into a system of life, a system of spirits (which may all together be one spirit--I don't know and not sure I believe that...or how I believe that...), and we have responsibilities to our kin, the other spirits here on earth: the land, water, air, plants, animals...all the different kinds of persons we have here. And we have a responsibility to our own kind, too--we need to seek a balance between us and our kin. A big part of that is if we would stop breeding like we do, and reduce our numbers and our other impacts as quickly as we can...I don't know, it gets complicated--if the others are persons, too, then we have too many human persons in the system right now--it's unbalanced.

This is perhaps a bit tangential, but one of the interesting points I've run across in Harvey's book is how animists address the killing of other persons. It puts an interesting spin on the "moral high ground" discussions that sometimes happen with vegetarian/vegan dietary choices in American culture. One might think that if we recognize other-than-human persons, this means we can't kill and at them. Yet in animistic societies, this does not happen - they are not vegetarian/vegan. Instead, it is recognized that one possible relationship to other persons is that you need to kill them to sustain yourself. That relationship is respected instead of avoided altogether.

I'm sometimes fond of spinning around the Christian idea of original sin by saying the "true" original sin is that humans are not autotrophs, but heterotrophs. We have to kill other beings to live. Jesus has some parallels to harvest gods - the death-rebirth gods of Paganisms - and can be seen as representing the grain that has to "die" for "sin" of needing to kill other beings to live. Obviously, contemporary Christians don't take this interpretation of the mythology, but one has to wonder if that was its intent as it first arose from a Pagan cultural morass...