Planetary Volition
On the heels of that last post, I'm thinking more of the possibility that global warming and civilization are part of the planet's plan. Or, what if this isn't natural, whatever that may mean, but the Earth really is cleaning up after our mess. Derrick Jensen said in an interview that when he was a kid, his mom would sometimes tell him to clean his room, and he would often ignore the request. Eventually, she'd tell him to clean the room, or she would do it for him, and he wouldn't like it (because all his stuff would get thrown out or reorganized in ways unfamiliar to him or whatever). And he said that maybe that's what the planet's doing with us: it's giving us all these warnings and all this opportunity for humanity to prove its worthwhile-ness, and if we keep ignoring the directives, mama Gaia's going to clean up and we're not going to like it. Makes a lot of sense to me.
But my question is: why do some people refuse to see this as a possibility? I'm not talking about those in denial of the crises we face; I mean the people who get it, but are insistent on mechanistic interpretations, and balk at the attribution of such 'human' traits on nonhuman entities. Why is it so difficult for some people to conceive of ascribing consciousness or volition elsewhere in ways like this? It's I think the same sort of denial that people have about Cleve Backster and primary perception, and some sort of consciousness at a level we don't understand that well. What is there to be gained from aclosed worldview? I mean, I dont' necessarily 'believe' in this, but it doesn't touble me to conceive of it, and talk about things as if it were true. A good friend of mine would be troubled by this, and frequently balks at alternate sort of ideas, like astrology or things like this.
It seems to me that we can simultaneously retain scientific and logical vigor and be open to things beyond this rationalist framework. Why do people consciously and intentionally deny possibilities that don't, to my mind, threaten in any meaningful way their place in the world? Maybe they are threatening, and I have forgotten about that. Or maybe they're just crazy, and I've convinced myself of the ludicrous.
Oh well- more fun to bask in bizarre than refuse it.
But my question is: why do some people refuse to see this as a possibility? I'm not talking about those in denial of the crises we face; I mean the people who get it, but are insistent on mechanistic interpretations, and balk at the attribution of such 'human' traits on nonhuman entities. Why is it so difficult for some people to conceive of ascribing consciousness or volition elsewhere in ways like this? It's I think the same sort of denial that people have about Cleve Backster and primary perception, and some sort of consciousness at a level we don't understand that well. What is there to be gained from aclosed worldview? I mean, I dont' necessarily 'believe' in this, but it doesn't touble me to conceive of it, and talk about things as if it were true. A good friend of mine would be troubled by this, and frequently balks at alternate sort of ideas, like astrology or things like this.
It seems to me that we can simultaneously retain scientific and logical vigor and be open to things beyond this rationalist framework. Why do people consciously and intentionally deny possibilities that don't, to my mind, threaten in any meaningful way their place in the world? Maybe they are threatening, and I have forgotten about that. Or maybe they're just crazy, and I've convinced myself of the ludicrous.
Oh well- more fun to bask in bizarre than refuse it.
posted by Archangel at 10:47 PM
4 Comments:
"I mean, I dont' necessarily 'believe' in this, but it doesn't touble me to conceive of it, and talk about things as if it were true. A good friend of mine would be troubled by this, and frequently balks at alternate sort of ideas, like astrology or things like this."
Yeah, totally! I find it really strange when people are like that. It's fun to open up to every possibility, to let it flow through you and to see how it feels. People have become too scared to imagine.
You wrote: "Why is it so difficult for some people to conceive of ascribing consciousness or volition elsewhere in ways like this?"
You know, Giuli at Anthropik once wrote about how during our early childhood experience we're all animistic by nature, we all experience the world as alive. This made alot of sense to me, it really spoke to my expeience. I think that 13 years of compulsory education drives this feeling and perception of the world out of us.
Giuli over at Anthropik, once wrote that we all take an animistic view of things when we are children. We experience the world as alive and enter into relationships with other beings. This really made a lot of sense to, it spoke to my experience.
I think that 13 years of compulsory schooling drives that feeling and perception of the world out of us.
Dan,
I love the idea of possibilities flowing through us- makes us receivers,in the electronic sense, of signals. (And I don't know much about electro-magentic energy, but isn't that kind of what we are? I mean, doesn't mainstream science sort of validate that? If so, cool!) And that totally jives with Rudy Rucker's idea of mind as a universal quality (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html) and Cleve Backster's suggestion that consciousness is pretty fundamental. Maybe I'm reaching, but anyway, it's all so exciting!
Curt-
Apologies! Your post made it, but I didn't publish it, and I'm sorry you had to retype and try again.
But yeah, I suspect she's right. It's been so long since I attuned to the spirited world that it's an uphill and still largely rational attempt for me to reconnect. But in due time, I suspect. And as jason on Anthropik mentioned, being an animist in the city is mentally taxing and hard to reconcile, just as being a non-animist in a forager's world would be. So in time. I think the key for me now is to just stay open to it when those spirits start to break through.
Post a Comment
<< Home