Non-sentient pantheism?

[Ouroboros]

Well that is because you are using a logical infallacy.

You mean fallacy.

Helium have electrons that are negatively charged but most helium is neutral.

The universe have humans that are sentient but the universe as a whole is not sentient.

I know what you mean. Yes, the whole universe isn't sentient necessarily because we are, but part of the universe is sentient, because we are. Part of the universe contain matter. Part of it energy. Part of it this and that. All parts, all together, that is what makes the universe, so sentience, as a part, is an integral part of what makes up the universe. Without it, it wouldn't be the whole universe.

Put it this way, what makes a city? What is New York city, for instance? Is it the buildings? Is it the people? Is it the traffic? Is it the life, motion, experience? We can't remove one or another thing without making a bit less that NY city. Every part is necessary for it to be the whole thing that we're referring to.

So in the same sense, human sentience is a part of the whole, but it's a part it can't be missing, because if we discard it and claim that the whole is something else than what human sentience is, then we're creating a dualism, a segregation of what parts make the whole and what parts do not.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

You mean fallacy.


I know what you mean. Yes, the whole universe isn't sentient necessarily because we are, but part of the universe is sentient, because we are. Part of the universe contain matter. Part of it energy. Part of it this and that. All parts, all together, that is what makes the universe, so sentience, as a part, is an integral part of what makes up the universe. Without it, it wouldn't be the whole universe.

Put it this way, what makes a city? What is New York city, for instance? Is it the buildings? Is it the people? Is it the traffic? Is it the life, motion, experience? We can't remove one or another thing without making a bit less that NY city. Every part is necessary for it to be the whole thing that we're referring to.

So in the same sense, human sentience is a part of the whole, but it's a part it can't be missing, because if we discard it and claim that the whole is something else than what human sentience is, then we're creating a dualism, a segregation of what parts make the whole and what parts do not.

A city is a concept.

The universe existed and was whole before humans and will be after us.

 

[Ouroboros]

A city is a concept.

And it exists. Or are you saying that NY city doesn't exist? When you're buying a air ticket to fly to NY, then you're not getting to a city?

Home, house, car, also concepts. Story, math, physics, also concepts. Sentience, awareness, consciousness, thoughts, feelings, also concepts.

The universe existed and was whole before humans and will be after us.

And right now, we do exist within the universe and are an integral part of the universe.

 

[columbus]

And for people who find the word "sentience" to be arbitrary, anthropocentric rubbish, like me.

This is why I don't see you as a theist.
You do not make the divine fit into a human shaped box(es). Doing so, to me, is the essence of theism.
I was raised in a heavily Abrahamic culture. I still see things through that lense.
Tom

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...naturalistic pantheism.

Interesting. How exactly is this different from naturalism?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

And it exists. Or are you saying that NY city doesn't exist? When you're buying a air ticket to fly to NY, then you're not getting to a city?

Home, house, car, also concepts. Story, math, physics, also concepts. Sentience, awareness, consciousness, thoughts, feelings, also concepts.


And right now, we do exist within the universe and are an integral part of the universe.

(1) Yes but I am saying what makes NY is the sum of its parts, but the city is not sentient.

(2) Byt you said we must exist for a WHOLE universe, which is untrue.

 

[Willamena]

A city is a concept.

The universe existed and was whole before humans and will be after us.

That's true of every part of the universe.

So why do only some parts get to count towards the whole?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That's true of every part of the universe.

So why do only some parts get to count towards the whole?

All parts count as the whole.

But the whole does not nessecarly exhibit the individual traits of it's components.

 

[Quintessence]

This is why I don't see you as a theist.
You do not make the divine fit into a human shaped box(es). Doing so, to me, is the essence of theism.
I was raised in a heavily Abrahamic culture. I still see things through that lense.
Tom

I find that interesting, considering theisms frequently understand that the gods are not like humans. Anthropomorphisms are used as a tool of understanding or as a literary device, and it's a given that such characterizations are not literally true. Such was the default mode of operation for historical polytheisms, as well as for classical monotheism.

To expand on the earlier remark though, I avoid using terms like "sentience" mostly because I regard that term differently than most in my culture do. In my culture, people presume "sentience" strictly means human-like self-awareness. I do not. And it's easier to just not use the word than try to explain "yeah, so self-awareness takes many forms, and it is definitely not limited to humans or human-like states." All that reflects my inherent animism more than my pantheism, though... and animism seems harder for folks in my culture to grasp than even pantheism is. Or perhaps I'm just not very skilled at explaining it well at this time.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I find that interesting, considering theisms frequently understand that the gods are not like humans. Anthropomorphisms are used as a tool of understanding or as a literary device, and it's a given that such characterizations are not literally true. Such was the default mode of operation for historical polytheisms, as well as for classical monotheism.

To expand on the earlier remark though, I avoid using terms like "sentience" mostly because I regard that term differently than most in my culture do. In my culture, people presume "sentience" strictly means human-like self-awareness. I do not. And it's easier to just not use the word than try to explain "yeah, so self-awareness takes many forms, and it is definitely not limited to humans or human-like states." All that reflects my inherent animism more than my pantheism, though... and animism seems harder for folks in my culture to grasp than even pantheism is. Or perhaps I'm just not very skilled at explaining it well at this time.

I would have to say that most ancient pagans saw the gods as literally real.

 

[Willamena]

All parts count as the whole.

But the whole does not nessecarly exhibit the individual traits of it's components.

It doesn't exhibit any traits of its parts. The universe has no unique properties.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It doesn't exhibit any traits of its parts. The universe has no unique properties.

Probably because it is impossible to observe the universe from the outside.

 

[Quintessence]

I would have to say that most ancient pagans saw the gods as literally real.

Yes, although not in the sense that many seem to think. When folks speak of mythological literalism, they envision literal, humanoid entities that are these gods walking around on the planet. That's not the sense of literalism meant. The literalism of polytheism is along the lines of thunder is Thor, not Thor is some human looking guy with a hammer wandering around (aka, not Marvel comics!).

 

[Windwalker]

"higher" is an opinion and I am not taking that bait.

Actually, it is not a matter of opinion at all. Natural hierarchies, growth hierarchies are facts. A molecule is "higher" than an atom because it is comprised of atoms. Molecules are in fact "higher" on the ladder of complexity because it includes atoms in itself. Atoms, to molecules, to cells, to tissue, to organs, to bodies, etc. Each is higher than what comes before it.

Don't mistake the word higher in growth hierarchies as meaning "better" or more important or more valuable in the sense of power hierarchies. I mean no such thing in this context.

A human is a collection of matter and energy in a particular arrangement that has the same building blocks as everything else in the universe, a single cell is not a human.

Then included in that collection is sentience - which of necessity is inherent in the building blocks of everything else in the universe. I do not see how sentience abruptly appears outside the nature of the universe and not somehow create a dichotomy between the universe and ourselves. Are we outside of it? Isn't the way you are describing the universe as a "thing" outside yourself? Aren't you removing the subject from the object? How can you have a division between the sentient subject, the universe it is part of as an object and it remain one?

To put a fine point on what I am saying here, is I agree that to call human cognition "sentience", is to say the least a problematic perspective, in no small part by what I pointed out in that you are removing your mind from the universe itself. You say the cell is unaware, that the rest is just inanimate and non sentient, except for the human mind. We become in this an oddity, a certain type of "special creation" above the universe, but as a whole the universe is little more than dormant rocks and whatnot with us sitting atop it, "transcending it". It almost seems a sort of theism of ourselves, seeing us outside creation, just as you see yourself outside your own body.

The universe is a collection of all matter and energy in the universe but a single piece of matter is not the universe.

Is consciousness matter?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes, although not in the sense that many seem to think. When folks speak of mythological literalism, they envision literal, humanoid entities that are these gods walking around on the planet. That's not the sense of literalism meant. The literalism of polytheism is along the lines of thunder is Thor, not Thor is some human looking guy with a hammer wandering around (aka, not Marvel comics!).

Looking at historical records and accounts this is untrue.

Sure there where problem some ancient pagans that thought that (and many neo-pagans) but it was by no means the norm.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Actually, it is not a matter of opinion at all. Natural hierarchies, growth hierarchies are facts. A molecule is "higher" than an atom because it is comprised of atoms. Molecules are in fact "higher" on the ladder of complexity because it includes atoms in itself. Atoms, to molecules, to cells, to tissue, to organs, to bodies, etc. Each is higher than what comes before it.

Don't mistake the word higher in growth hierarchies as meaning "better" or more important or more valuable in the sense of power hierarchies. I mean no such thing in this context.


Then included in that collection is sentience - which of necessity is inherent in the building blocks of everything else in the universe. I do not see how sentience abruptly appears outside the nature of the universe and not somehow create a dichotomy between the universe and ourselves. Are we outside of it? Isn't the way you are describing the universe as a "thing" outside yourself? Aren't you removing the subject from the object? How can you have a division between the sentient subject, the universe it is part of as an object and it remain one?

To put a fine point on what I am saying here, is I agree that to call human cognition "sentience", is to say the least a problematic perspective, in no small part by what I pointed out in that you are removing your mind from the universe itself. You say the cell is unaware, that the rest is just inanimate and non sentient, except for the human mind. We become in this an oddity, a certain type of "special creation" above the universe, but as a whole the universe is little more than dormant rocks and whatnot with us sitting atop it, "transcending it". It almost seems a sort of theism of ourselves, seeing us outside creation, just as you see yourself outside your own body.


Is consciousness matter?

(1) Yes but this is not one of those hierarchies.

(2) No that is untrue, building blocks in certain combinations make certain things.

(3) Oddities exist all over the universe, because some combinations are rarer than others.

 

[Willamena]

All parts count as the whole.

But the whole does not nessecarly exhibit the individual traits of it's components.

Are you thinking, then, that consciousness is a trait rather than a part?

 

[Jumi]

Interesting. How exactly is this different from naturalism?

I think it's just the emphasis on revering nature. I would expect a group of naturalistic pantheists to gravitate toward "softer" values than a pure naturalist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think it's just the emphasis on revering nature. I would expect a group of naturalistic pantheists to gravitate toward "softer" values than a pure naturalist.

I get the reverence for nature aspect, but I'm still not clear about the practical difference between naturalism and naturalistic pantheism. What do you mean by "softer" values?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Are you thinking, then, that consciousness is a trait rather than a part?

It is a trait of a part.