Determining Persons in Animism

[beenherebeforeagain]

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...

This is something I was hinting at. Some believe that harming sentient, feeling beings is wrong--whether to feed people or to use them as labor or a supply of material (such as wool). Some even object to having animal companions--pets, or assistants for the disabled, and so on. As an animist, I believe that everything is sentient, to some degree--and that you have sentience doesn't buy you special privileges. Should humans be compassionate, and avoid harming others when we can? Sure. But what is harm?

Is removing all the predators and not hunting deer and other large herbivores, allowing them to overpopulate an area, eat most of the flora, and then die of disease and starvation, being compassionate? I don't think so; if we remove predators, we have the responsibility for filling in that role--otherwise there will be starvation, disease, and the herbivores can literally reduce the biodiversity of an area to almost zero by eating everything (anyone who has ever spent a little time in nature realizes that while there is lots of plant tissue available in an environment, very little of it is actually eaten by large creatures)--threatening many other plant and animal species. If we play the role of predator, it would be stupid just to kill a portion for population control and let them rot--their sacrifice should go to feed someone.

Western culture (and both Christianity and the areligious have contributed to this) has reduced animals (and plants, and everything else) to senseless automatons and inert substances that can be used and abused by humans at will. Animism is a worldview that requires the human to know its effect and to be a responsible partner in the maintenance of the system upon which we--and others--depend to survive. We are not the only link in the network, and we certainly aren't the most important.

If civilized humans are going to survive, we need the natural world around us. If we're going to live an average of 75 years instead of the typical pre-civilization 30-40 years, then it is in our interest to make sure that there aren't so many humans that we--by sheer numbers--overwhelm and displace all the other species and disrupt all the natural systems on the planet

I'll get off my soapbox now; apologies.

 

[Mindmaster]

This is something I was hinting at. Some believe that harming sentient, feeling beings is wrong--whether to feed people or to use them as labor or a supply of material (such as wool). Some even object to having animal companions--pets, or assistants for the disabled, and so on. As an animist, I believe that everything is sentient, to some degree--and that you have sentience doesn't buy you special privileges. Should humans be compassionate, and avoid harming others when we can? Sure. But what is harm?

I think it's easy to extrapolate these ideas too far. I'm the weird sort of person that is sensitive to the energies around me and I find them in everything from rocks, trees, animals, and nearly anything else you can see and a few things you probably can't. But, realistically I understand I cannot live without killing a plant, animal, or whatever. It is just my natural state of being that something must be consumed for me to live, so I am not in a weird moral conundrum with it. I essentially think it is impossible to avoid killing the food or the pests, so I am not greatly bothered by this at least as far as domestic needs go. For me, there is not much that is non-living other than synthetic objects and they don't make good food.

As far as responsibility to the environment, I think it is is wise to maintain the oasis that give us these things. Provided we aren't tearing them up nature can sort this out herself. It's not that we consume it's that we do not guard the reserve that causes all of the problems. Too many choices are made for relatively short term gains, and that is the type of thinking that humanity has to get past if we want to keep the Earth running smoothly.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll get off my soapbox now; apologies.

Hah, naw, you're good. The above rant could be titled "reasons why ecology needs to be taught better in public schools." The worldview one develops from studying ecology parallels the animist mindset, given ecology is a relational discipline. Studying the sciences - biological science and ecology in particular - is what led me to my current religious path. You can't study biodiversity and how organisms relate to their environment without seeing interconnectedness and realizing the boundary mainstream culture draws between humans and other animals isn't nearly as clear as it is made out to be. The whole Western/Christian/dualist worldview we've inherited is predicated on making humans categorically "other," and the sciences throw a massive wrench in that paradigm.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is something I was hinting at. Some believe that harming sentient, feeling beings is wrong--whether to feed people or to use them as labor or a supply of material (such as wool). Some even object to having animal companions--pets, or assistants for the disabled, and so on. As an animist, I believe that everything is sentient, to some degree--and that you have sentience doesn't buy you special privileges. Should humans be compassionate, and avoid harming others when we can? Sure. But what is harm?

Is removing all the predators and not hunting deer and other large herbivores, allowing them to overpopulate an area, eat most of the flora, and then die of disease and starvation, being compassionate? I don't think so; if we remove predators, we have the responsibility for filling in that role--otherwise there will be starvation, disease, and the herbivores can literally reduce the biodiversity of an area to almost zero by eating everything (anyone who has ever spent a little time in nature realizes that while there is lots of plant tissue available in an environment, very little of it is actually eaten by large creatures)--threatening many other plant and animal species. If we play the role of predator, it would be stupid just to kill a portion for population control and let them rot--their sacrifice should go to feed someone.

Western culture (and both Christianity and the areligious have contributed to this) has reduced animals (and plants, and everything else) to senseless automatons and inert substances that can be used and abused by humans at will. Animism is a worldview that requires the human to know its effect and to be a responsible partner in the maintenance of the system upon which we--and others--depend to survive. We are not the only link in the network, and we certainly aren't the most important.

If civilized humans are going to survive, we need the natural world around us. If we're going to live an average of 75 years instead of the typical pre-civilization 30-40 years, then it is in our interest to make sure that there aren't so many humans that we--by sheer numbers--overwhelm and displace all the other species and disrupt all the natural systems on the planet

I'll get off my soapbox now; apologies.

Will push you off the soap box. If I may. In my view, I understand that it is hard to survive without killing animals. To me, like the holocaust, thats like killing human beings. If we were all cannibals, how would our morals of killing change? Would we think the same way as how many who share your view see animals (retorical question).

I always felt if we had the choice to kill a living creature, we are killing ourselves. That is why I see soo much importance in praying for the animal and self because it shouldnt be something we want to do (imo) but something we need. Even that, people are using the same logic on abortion. How can one be right and the other wrong when both say it is a necessity?

My father used to hunt and he brought this subject up yesterday surprisingly. He says the same as yourself about the nature of killing game. Then it made me think of that animals Spirit. If someone killed me for the color of my skin because they felt there was an over population of dark skined people, how would I feel.

Dr. Claud Anderson, an American Black (as he pefers to be addressed) college professor in African American studies touches on this. He says that "whites" saw the over population of black people in the US south eastern states at the time. The government killed many and inslaved others (like we hoard animals) for this reason.

Granted the history is no where compared to animal care and killing for food, but spiritually it made me think of how we view death in regards to our lives.

It puts a different perspective on other religions. As a animist, if I dont give in return, I feel like Im just like Hitler and slave owners (both Black and white, surprinsingly from his lecture). Its like Im killing or inslaving my own people.

Like when you mentioned about some people dont even want pets, I fall in that category of people.

I honestly thought all Animist thought that way making many vegetarians or vegans. How you present your views (and what you said earlier) makes sense, logically.

Spiritually, it joggs my brain.

Okay. I will let @Quintessence take the lead if no one has already.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Will push you off the soap box. If I may. In my view, I understand that it is hard to survive without killing animals. To me, like the holocaust, thats like killing human beings. If we were all cannibals, how would our morals of killing change? Would we think the same way as how many who share your view see animals (retorical question).

I always felt if we had the choice to kill a living creature, we are killing ourselves. That is why I see soo much importance in praying for the animal and self because it shouldnt be something we want to do (imo) but something we need. Even that, people are using the same logic on abortion. How can one be right and the other wrong when both say it is a necessity?

My father used to hunt and he brought this subject up yesterday surprisingly. He says the same as yourself about the nature of killing game. Then it made me think of that animals Spirit. If someone killed me for the color of my skin because they felt there was an over population of dark skined people, how would I feel.

Dr. Claud Anderson, an American Black (as he pefers to be addressed) college professor in African American studies touches on this. He says that "whites" saw the over population of black people in the US south eastern states at the time. The government killed many and inslaved others (like we hoard animals) for this reason.

Granted the history is no where compared to animal care and killing for food, but spiritually it made me think of how we view death in regards to our lives.

It puts a different perspective on other religions. As a animist, if I dont give in return, I feel like Im just like Hitler and slave owners (both Black and white, surprinsingly from his lecture). Its like Im killing or inslaving my own people.

Like when you mentioned about some people dont even want pets, I fall in that category of people.

I honestly thought all Animist thought that way making many vegetarians or vegans. How you present your views (and what you said earlier) makes sense, logically.

Spiritually, it joggs my brain.

Okay. I will let @Quintessence take the lead if no one has already.

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't really disagree, it's a matter of perspective and individual preference on such matters. That said, though, while I am not particularly in favor of killing humans (and certainly don't want to eat them!), sometimes, there are humans that need killed--but a lot of that arises from our inability to effectively care for ourselves and our own. I think there are a lot of choices that should not be up to the individual alone to decide, but should be up to the community, or at least the community should have input into individual decisions. Unlimited reproduction is one of those areas; I would much rather see a community decide upon and impose on its members a single-child rule than see the outcome of poverty, disease and starvation that is resulting already among humans around the world.

Heck, I can even see a marketplace: each person has the right to have one child, basically, to replace themselves--if they choose to not have children, they can sell their right to someone else who wants to have another child--and if you choose to give up your right, you have to get spayed/neutered, so no accidents can happen, just as we control the populations of domestic animals...

That's getting off point, though: if we as the thinking, feeling, manipulating species on the earth, the ones who are developing and using technology and altering environments to provide for us at the expense of the other residents, then we have the responsibility to BE RESPONSIBLE; to minimize our impact--and one of those ways is to limit our numbers voluntarily, rather than waiting for overpopulation and the natural course of disease and starvation--or warfare--to do so.

 

[allfoak]

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?

My understanding of much of this comes from the Hermetic Tradition.
I use many different sources equally to increase my understanding of myself.
I learn what works and what does not and continue forward with what works.

Thus far, my seeking has lead me to this perspective, a perspective of which is always subject to change as other perspectives are encountered.

Acts 17:28 (KJV)
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Living in the Mind of the All and yet we are the offspring of the All, this being the premise, or starting point, we see soul and spirit is in all things in some degree since everything contains the All within itself as well as being within the All.

If what the Bible says is true, that we are made in his image and that his image is plain to see through the signature of creation, then the only way this could be true is if All is Mind.
In other words, we must live in a holographic universe.
Everything contains a part of the whole picture and is in fact a separate consciousness from the All, yet still contained within the Mind of the All, nothing is separate because this is where: "all things live and move and have their being".

There is much that could be added so...
I hope this makes sense and does not offend.
It is my intention of course to achieve the former and avoid the latter.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My understanding of much of this comes from the Hermetic Tradition.
I use many different sources equally to increase my understanding of myself.
I learn what works and what does not and continue forward with what works.

Thus far, my seeking has lead me to this perspective, a perspective of which is always subject to change as other perspectives are encountered.


Living in the Mind of the All and yet we are the offspring of the All, this being the premise, or starting point, we see soul and spirit is in all things in some degree since everything contains the All within itself as well as being within the All.

If what the Bible says is true, that we are made in his image and that his image is plain to see through the signature of creation, then the only way this could be true is if All is Mind.
In other words, we must live in a holographic universe.
Everything contains a part of the whole picture and is in fact a separate consciousness from the All, yet still contained within the Mind of the All, nothing is separate because this is where: "all things live and move and have their being".

There is much that could be added so...
I hope this makes sense and does not offend.
It is my intention of course to achieve the former and avoid the latter.

So in your view, is everything "persons" because it is all part of the All?

 

[allfoak]

So in your view, is everything "persons" because it is all part of the All?

If we are describing "persons" in the sense of everything having the signature of the All, then yes.
I think all things have their own soul and spirit, yet are not separate from the All.
It is just the paradox of life.

 

[Quintessence]

@Carlita, there's a section on ancestors in Harvey's book that made me think of you. Upon reflecting on your last post, I think it's good to keep in mind that in animistic societies, death isn't often regarded as a "The End" like it is in Western/Christian/dualistic frameworks. Harvey remarks upon how the least interesting thing about the ancestors is the fact that they are dead - their status of being dead isn't what matters for that relationship. They still have power and presence in the now. Similarly, when we kill other non-human persons for food, it is often viewed as more of a transformation than a "The End" style death. The creatures you consume - part of their essence transforms into you. Curiously, the sciences reinforce the whole "you are what you eat" idea - you can trace an animal's diet and habitat by analyzing isotope signatures from their body. To an isotope analyst, the typical American looks like corn, because we have so much of it in our diets. Corn Spirit lives through our animal bodies.

 

[allfoak]

the typical American looks like corn, because we have so much of it in our diets. Corn Spirit lives through our animal bodies.

I have been working on changing that for almost 10 years.
I don't really care for corn or its products anymore.

 

[Quintessence]

I have been working on changing that for almost 10 years.
I don't really care for corn or its products anymore.

What?! You don't like corn? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

(seriously, I love corn - not so much a fan of the industrialization of agriculture, but that's a topic for a different thread)

 

[allfoak]

What?! You don't like corn? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

(seriously, I love corn - not so much a fan of the industrialization of agriculture, but that's a topic for a different thread)

The process was kind of natural.
When i ditched the meat and processed food and changed to a vegetarian diet, the change was normal as far as i can tell, i made no conscious effort to eliminate corn from my diet.
Much of what i ate prior to the change was full of corn syrup and other corn products.
Once I eliminated all of those products from my diet, the desire to eat corn became more of a seasonal thing.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe this is a little too US-tainted-Buddhist-y for such a discussion, but I see mindfulness as key here. I don't have a choice whether to kill to survive. And I'm animist enough to not see vegetarianism as a way out of this - plants have their own self and energy, and their passing is also a death in every reasonable sense.

But I do have a choice about whether to do it blindly, or in excess of my true need. I am not a brainless eating machine; we are the parts of the universe adept at seeing and understanding the universe, and that connotes moral responsibility. I should and do avoid overating; I should and do avoid as best I can forms of eating that result in cruelty to living beings, though this is difficult to do in a capitalist world where cruelty is part of most food production schema. I'm not a vegetarian, as ethically raised meat is a better option in my opinion than ecologically careless horticulture. But I only buy meat when I can afford to avoid that which comes from the slaughterhouses, because I've been to them and they are terrifying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Carlita, there's a section on ancestors in Harvey's book that made me think of you. Upon reflecting on your last post, I think it's good to keep in mind that in animistic societies, death isn't often regarded as a "The End" like it is in Western/Christian/dualistic frameworks. Harvey remarks upon how the least interesting thing about the ancestors is the fact that they are dead - their status of being dead isn't what matters for that relationship. They still have power and presence in the now. Similarly, when we kill other non-human persons for food, it is often viewed as more of a transformation than a "The End" style death. The creatures you consume - part of their essence transforms into you. Curiously, the sciences reinforce the whole "you are what you eat" idea - you can trace an animal's diet and habitat by analyzing isotope signatures from their body. To an isotope analyst, the typical American looks like corn, because we have so much of it in our diets. Corn Spirit lives through our animal bodies.

Seeing animals and plants etc as ancestors? I have to admit, (unless I read you wrong), that makes more sense. Like the ancestors work through me as the animals life works through the person (or hunter? @beenherebeforeagain )that consumes it?

I will take a look at the book. Honestly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Quintessence

Its expensive. Is it an easy read? It looks good but I cant get through heavy scholar academic books.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Carlita, there's a section on ancestors in Harvey's book that made me think of you. Upon reflecting on your last post, I think it's good to keep in mind that in animistic societies, death isn't often regarded as a "The End" like it is in Western/Christian/dualistic frameworks. Harvey remarks upon how the least interesting thing about the ancestors is the fact that they are dead - their status of being dead isn't what matters for that relationship. They still have power and presence in the now. Similarly, when we kill other non-human persons for food, it is often viewed as more of a transformation than a "The End" style death. The creatures you consume - part of their essence transforms into you. Curiously, the sciences reinforce the whole "you are what you eat" idea - you can trace an animal's diet and habitat by analyzing isotope signatures from their body. To an isotope analyst, the typical American looks like corn, because we have so much of it in our diets. Corn Spirit lives through our animal bodies.

It seems American culture or maybe its true that instead of our wanting to relate to what or who we take the lives of, we avoid them. Take even a prisoner. Granted there are christian prision ministries and there is a sense of "I vs them" rather than "I am one with them" type of thing.

I do find value in vegetarian (not quite vegan) -ism in that I see plants, veggies, and fruits more healthy for my body and mind than meats. If I can afford it, I buy organic meats.

As for the animist connection, would you say the plants and animals we eat is the same as when some of us work with our ancestors (or say sun Spirit?) its the same "cosumption" just by different means?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

@Quintessence

Its expensive. Is it an easy read? It looks good but I cant get through heavy scholar academic books.

See if you can borrow it through your local library. If the one Q is referring to is at all like Graham's Handbook of Contemporary Animism, there will be quite a variety of writing styles. Most of them are "academic," but most (certainly not all) are written in fairly accessible styles. It took me more than a year reading HoCA, but then I would think about an article after reading it, read other articles I could find by the author or on the subject of the article...and was fitting it in around work and family stuff.

 

[Quintessence]

@Quintessence

Its expensive. Is it an easy read? It looks good but I cant get through heavy scholar academic books.

No, it's not an easy read (it's this one, by the by) - it's for academic/scholarly audiences or those who have a decent background in this stuff already. Not that this should stop you. You've got to start somewhere, but there are far more accessible books on animism than this one. Don't bother unless you've the patience to be a patron of your nearby university library, because a public library is unlikely to have it in their collection (though they can ILL).

 

[Lucida Sidera]

There are some kinds of behaviours which are usually diagnosed as "ocd" which includes seeing different things as they were alive and had some kind of conscience. Those behaviors seem to exist in any kind of culture - without any need to have animists references of any kind.

I don't want with it, of course, to reduce animism to ocd, but it's interesting the perspective of random people behaving as animists by mere instintic or unexplained psychological reasons.