The Anti-Animism

[The Sum of Awe]

In contrast to saying the fundamental building block of reality being life, saying the fundamental building block of reality is non-life, or even death because all known of reality is impermanent. The idea that there isn't life in everything - that what we perceive as life is an illusion and is simply a series of non-life things.

What do you say of that?

 

[bobhikes]

It really doesn't matter what the fundamental building blocks of reality are. Reality can only be known through intelligence which relies on life. What ever makes up reality is only important because of the intelligence of life.

 

[idav]

The building blocks don't have to be life just animate, which it is.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The building blocks don't have to be life just animate, which it is.

I disagree. Why do you pronounce your statement so surely?

 

[idav]

I disagree. Why do you pronounce your statement so surely?

Cause the words seem rather similar.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Cause the words seem rather similar.

Which words?

 

[idav]

Which words?

Animism and animate.

 

[idav]

Which words?

Animism and animate.

It still amounts to life being an illusion, just that the illusion is using the animate matter.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's of my opinion that there isn't a basic thing that is part of all, things can be infinitely divided smaller and smaller, and all of the way down it is non-life, and life is an illusion created by a collection of nonlife

 

[Amechania]

It's of my opinion that there isn't a basic thing that is part of all, things can be infinitely divided smaller and smaller, and all of the way down it is non-life, and life is an illusion created by a collection of nonlife

That should've been your opener.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Interaction is the fundamental building bock. All of existence, all matter, and all changes are driven by those Fundamental Interactions...gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. In a way, neither life nor death exists, only interaction exists. There are simple interactions and there are complex interactions. It is those most complex of all interactions we call life and consciousness.

No matter how small you divide things up, you would still find that for those things to exist they must still interact in some way. There is always interaction. Interaction is fundamental.

How does animism fit into this? Everything is animated by those forces of nature. Everything in existence is moving, changing, dynamic, energetic. That to me IS animate. That animating "spirit" of everything that exists (rocks, trees, breathing creatures, the Sun, the Moon, our galaxy, the entire universe) is those Fundamental Forces. That is the "spirit" of all existence. Our most primitive, animistic ancestors were not wrong in thinking the way they did about nature. In fact, being as close to nature as they were they probably understood how it worked better than anyone...almost as well as modern physicists.

In a way, modern physics is the animism of the future.



---

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That should've been your opener.

It sort of was

 

[humanelk]

The whole "non-life creates the illusion of life" is nonsense when you think about it. If life is an illusion, then what can we even refer to as life? We would have to assume that we are a bunch of machines that were created by some other being that is "truly alive," and not emergent properties of the world itself. Otherwise we might as well get rid of the term "life." But there is no evidence for that we need to do this. Like runewolf said, science has shown that if anything is an illusion, it is that there is any such thing as "Dead matter" with zero interactional characteristics. Death as we know it is just a breakdown of a temporary organization of animate beings.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

From my perspective, as an animist, I disagree with you. However, it is totally irrelevant to me how you think about it. I do like @Runewolf1973 's response, but that's only another way of looking at it, and it pretty much is irrelevant to me, too. I do understand both points of view, and have entertained both in my life. But, my animism isn't about philosophy, although I do dabble in philosophy. My animism is about living within this mystery we inhabit. There are lots of different ways of perceiving, experiencing, and thinking about that mystery. Whether you call it dead, or alive, or interaction, or Bob and Louise...it really doesn't matter much to me.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The whole "non-life creates the illusion of life" is nonsense when you think about it. If life is an illusion, then what can we even refer to as life? We would have to assume that we are a bunch of machines that were created by some other being that is "truly alive," and not emergent properties of the world itself. Otherwise we might as well get rid of the term "life." But there is no evidence for that we need to do this. Like runewolf said, science has shown that if anything is an illusion, it is that there is any such thing as "Dead matter" with zero interactional characteristics. Death as we know it is just a breakdown of a temporary organization of animate beings.

For the record, I don't consider anything to be truly living, conscious, or dead. Everything is interactive. Some things just interact in more complex or less complex ways than others giving the illusion of living, conscious, or dead.

 

[humanelk]

For the record, I don't consider anything to be truly living, conscious, or dead. Everything is interactive. Some things just interact in more complex or less complex ways than others giving the illusion of living, conscious, or dead.

What isn't an illusion then? I agree that these are all labels which could be collapsed down to one description of "interactions," but those interactions seem to have their own types of agency, preferences, etc... Not sure that it qualifies them for conciousness, but their "liveliness" makes them a lot more interesting and perhaps more autonomous than just dead mechanical abstractions. I don't think particles are just like chaotic bouncing cue balls, there seem to be some other types of "preferences" going on, even when if we have to describe them through gravity or electromagnetics.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What isn't an illusion then? I agree that these are all labels which could be collapsed down to one description of "interactions," but those interactions seem to have their own types of agency, preferences, etc... Not sure that it qualifies them for conciousness, but their "liveliness" makes them a lot more interesting and perhaps more autonomous than just dead mechanical abstractions. I don't think particles are just like chaotic bouncing cue balls, there seem to be some other types of "preferences" going on, even when if we have to describe them through gravity or electromagnetics.

Some interactions are very peculiar and complex, such as those we call life. I do think particles are like chaotic bouncing cue balls. Sometimes out of that chaos emerge some pretty neat structures...the particles arrange in certain ways and start interacting as units and systems instead of individual particles.

 

[humanelk]

Some interactions are very peculiar and complex, such as those we call life. I do think particles are like chaotic bouncing cue balls. Sometimes out of that chaos emerge some pretty neat structures...the particles arrange in certain ways and start interacting as units and systems instead of individual particles.

The emergence of those peculiar and complex structures is what makes it hard for me to believe that their movement is the chaotic movement of an underlying homogeneous fabric of particles. I either have to believe that there is some fundamental replicated particle that composes everything and then explain that its movement is governed by classic "laws" of mechanics imposed on the homogenous particles, or I have to view particles as unique players in their own right. The unpredictability introduced by quantum mechanics is what currently keeps me believing in the "individuality" of particles, and I think we'll never be able to completely predict billiard-ball outcomes using classical mechanics because the particles themselves do not act like a homogenous superstring fabric .

 

[Runewolf1973]

The emergence of those peculiar and complex structures is what makes it hard for me to believe that their movement is the chaotic movement of an underlying homogeneous fabric of particles. I either have to believe that there is some fundamental replicated particle that composes everything and then explain that its movement is governed by classic "laws" of mechanics imposed on the homogenous particles, or I have to view particles as unique players in their own right. The unpredictability introduced by quantum mechanics is what currently keeps me believing in the "individuality" of particles, and I think we'll never be able to completely predict billiard-ball outcomes using classical mechanics because the particles themselves do not act like a homogenous superstring fabric .

I guess I'm kinda the opposite. It's the chaotic randomness that makes it easy for me to believe more complex structures and peculiar forms can emerge. Everything that comprises our bodies are literally born of chaos...the elements formed by collapsing stars. Chaos is creation.

 

[humanelk]

I guess I'm kinda the opposite. It's the chaotic randomness that makes it easy for me to believe more complex structures and peculiar forms can emerge. Everything that comprises our bodies are literally born of chaos...the elements formed by collapsing stars. Chaos is creation.

It's not that I'm against the concept of chaos, it's just that to even have things like "order" and "disorder" I think that the particles themselves must have some fundamental character that is irreducible. In order to have forms that are distinct, there must be differentiation. For there to be "interaction" there must be differences between the things interacting. Much of science has tried to find some kind of unified theory of everything, like saying "everything is energy." I agree that you could verbally be this reductive, and say things that are internally logical, such as "everything is interaction." What I'm trying to get at as whether there is some kind of mental shift where we can say that, "everything is different" which is, in effect, is saying that the world is irreducible to any one building block and will never be entirely predictable. And it's also NOT an illusion..., there is no internal consistency to the thought that all of our experiences are illusions. The concept of illusion requires at least one thing or viewpoint that is not an illusion. We've been taught by religion, science, and media not to trust our senses... That behind everything we experience is actually a really boring and stale core that is the "truth" as describable by math or theology. That the "non-illusion" is either a gods-eye view or a quarks-eye view... Entirely imagined, but somehow more fundamental than what we actually sense. What I'm getting at is that I think these reductive views are the real illusions.