Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SecularAnimism

Main entry

618. 618secular animism

Animism and supply chains

618. Globalization destroys consequentialist ethics [1] -> only an anarchist could believe this.
618. Animism can be used to understand supply chains; this is to imply that animism can be secular as opposed to being religion [2] -> I am fascinated by this. I don't like the concept. I kind of hate it. but I really want to know what on earth it could possibly mean. because from the explanation of the premise given in the video that introduced it, I have absolutely no idea how you conceptualize animism without religion.

Miscellaneous

618. Tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives, therefore they lived this way because of animism / Animism originated in tribal populations, and tribal populations lived less exploitative and more sustainable lives, therefore they lived this way because of animism, and industrial societies stopped living this way because colonialism maliciously destroyed animism [3]
618. When Westerners appropriate animism for themselves and see it specifically through Western eyes, discussions about animism are not insulting tribal populations any more [4]
618. Animism is concerned with learning how to be a good person in respectful relationships with other living beings [5]
618. Lake Erie is a living entity because it is full of living organisms [6] -> on one hand, this is technically true. like, if it contains many individual living organisms, Lake Erie is conceptually a population, and populations are ecological entities. I can't even really say that laws protecting the lake or protecting animal populations are necessarily bad.
     on the other hand, I think the best response to this claim is to pull out scenes from old mildly-racist cartoons. notably that scene in Kimba the White Lion where an African tribe in a scarcely developed area was illegally hunting animals and somebody from a city just flat out started ordering the tribal people around and telling them the city had the rights to those animals, not the tribal people, so the tribal people have to move to the city and participate in capitalism at its lowest rungs. and Kimba the white lion just stood there smiling at it the whole time. this is what happens when humans think that any group of humans can actually speak for inanimate objects or nonhuman animals as if they were people — the objects turn into allies of that specific group of people against other groups of people, which can be used to oppress other groups of people in a Filament effect.
618. Commons are realms of life defined by organic wholeness and relationality, as opposed to division and alienation; it is unclear what "organic" or "relationality" implies in this context [7]

Related

618. re-enchanting the world [8] -> what has always confused me is, what actually is this, and why is it necessary?
618. Scientific rationalism is insufficient for creating purpose and meaning; it is unclear what purpose or meaning implies in this context [9] -> so. maybe this is a stupid question. why do we need to create purpose and meaning in the first place? why is it necessary to have a framework for that and immediately assume it applies to everything? how can we know that any given framework for "creating purpose and meaning" will not run into nasty issues of plurality where it will inherently begin enforcing itself onto other people who don't want to use it while they would rather enforce a different framework?
     think about this. Trotskyism claims to be able to unite everyone of all industrial societies around the world. but it inevitably runs into conflicts with Third World Marxisms that don't want Trotskyism essentially invading their country from the outside and conquering their population — which it inevitably does because it doesn't like the idea of non-Trotskyisms joining the Fourth International on their own terms, starting 'from within their own framework of meaning'. how do you know this problem couldn't happen with basically all philosophies ever including secular animism? I am convinced at this point that all philosophies that don't acknowledge the concept of meta-philosophy and analyzing themselves as mere objects rather than Subjects are basically garbage. people say that "scientific rationalism" centers humans. but I don't think that's the problem. I think the real problem is that it centers The Subject, and can't conceptualize a universe that is made of inanimate objects instead of Subjects. and, sure, it'd be ridiculous to create an ethics centered around inanimate objects. but if you aren't thinking in terms of ethics, and are thinking in terms of descriptively modeling the universe to get the best consequences, I think a model centered on inanimate objects is the way to go. every time you center The Subject you will always give Subjects the power to conquer the rest of the universe, because that's what individual Subjects do: they eat, occupy space, fight, and reproduce. so I think you honestly get a way more ethical philosophy if you practice "inanimism" rather than animism. because only a philosophy that includes the whole universe including inanimate objects truly lacks the ability to exclude any group of people.
618. Reality is a commons; this is to imply that all conscious beings are united by consciousness rather than divided by it (Andreas Weber) [10] -> ah. they're using "commoning" to smuggle in Henri Bergson.
618. inanimism -> the motif of seeing the universe as based on inanimate objects. [11] this term is rare, but already occasionally in use.

Ideology codes

• A / anarchism