Conscious beings are efficacious and that is how we can know where they exist. They are able to sense their environment and interact with it in a dynamic flexible goal oriented way. They interact with their immediate surroundings in their own characteristic manner. They are self movers but require the use of energy to move. Where would we find such fundamental mental beings, monads or natural individuals? I use science to speculate as to the answer to that question and arrive at some surprising conclusions. The fundamental subjective beings exist at the level of elementary particles and animals with nervous systems but also at two intermediate levels within the living Earth. I conclude that on planet Earth there is a four level hierarchy of natural mentality.
Love this, Lorenzo! I'm curious who your paper was for and how it was received. And if you'd want to publish it (or an adapted version?) on this Substack! I sort of feel like a lot of the Substack audience might agree with your conclusions to an extent that makes the paper feel unnecessarily belabored? I haven't finished it yet; that might not be true. And still, sometimes it's fun to have new, more-academic language with which to defend existing beliefs. If you want, I can circle back after I finish reading it to let you know how I would suggest adapting it for this platform/audience.
While this is a beautiful sentiment, I think it’s important to acknowledge that animism is already a science. It is indigenous science. Everyone is indigenous to somewhere, and sometimes the study of where exactly you’re from and how your lineage got to their conclusions is the personal science. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the privileges you hold but in reality, adding the notion of “science” in front of animism feels like an unnecessary addendum, and is in a way, like colonization. It’s okay to be an animist and allow collective awareness to be your belief!
I appreciate you pushing back on me! Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I started replying from my phone the morning I got it, then accidentally swiped right, and Substack lost my draft.
The institutions of science really do carry a lot of colonizer baggage, huh? When I've done versions of the "are you a Scientific Animist?" conversation in person, way more people have taken issue with the "do you believe in science" part than the "do you believe some form of animism." As a result of these conversations, I updated the About page, which used to be a straight copy-paste of this post, to include a little more nuance about what exactly I'm talking about when I talk about science. https://scientificanimism.substack.com/about
I love the bits in Braiding Sweetgrass about Indigenous Science. There's one chapter in particular that describes a sort-of "Indigenous Science vs Academia Science" encounter https://www.litcharts.com/lit/braiding-sweetgrass/chapter-15. Braiding Sweetgrass is obviously dripping with animism, though I'm not sure it ever uses the word. There's also a great chapter where RWK distinguishes between the scientific process and "the scientific worldview." https://www.litcharts.com/lit/braiding-sweetgrass/chapter-28
It's interesting to me that you equate the two terms—"animism IS indigenous science." I see still some nuance between the two, and find it useful to have both. As "animism" becomes more zeitgeistey, I'd expect a whole bunch of white people to start calling themselves "animists" without doing any sort of conscious engagement with Indigenous cosmologies/sciences/peoples. One can believe that all/many things are animate, without doing any sort of science.
No shade on any form of animism (though maybe I will have shade for all the anti-vax, "raw water"-drinking white folks when/if they start co-opting the term). But for this Substack, I'm intentionally trying to carve out and explore the space inhabited by Kimmerer. An intentional marrying of Western scientific and Indigenous/animist inquiry. I'm not sure exactly what to call it, but I _think_ most people's conceptions of "science" and "animism" make "scientific animism" a pretty close approximation. I'm open to other ideas!
Are you potentially interested in writing an essay for this Substack? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Indigenous Science.
"I want to do Scientific Animism. With a community. As a culture. I want to get together with friends and practice it." I know I said this before but I think you're tapping into a need that is more widespread than most of us realize!
Conscious beings are efficacious and that is how we can know where they exist. They are able to sense their environment and interact with it in a dynamic flexible goal oriented way. They interact with their immediate surroundings in their own characteristic manner. They are self movers but require the use of energy to move. Where would we find such fundamental mental beings, monads or natural individuals? I use science to speculate as to the answer to that question and arrive at some surprising conclusions. The fundamental subjective beings exist at the level of elementary particles and animals with nervous systems but also at two intermediate levels within the living Earth. I conclude that on planet Earth there is a four level hierarchy of natural mentality.
see my paper https://philarchive.org/rec/SLESA called Scientific Animism
Love this, Lorenzo! I'm curious who your paper was for and how it was received. And if you'd want to publish it (or an adapted version?) on this Substack! I sort of feel like a lot of the Substack audience might agree with your conclusions to an extent that makes the paper feel unnecessarily belabored? I haven't finished it yet; that might not be true. And still, sometimes it's fun to have new, more-academic language with which to defend existing beliefs. If you want, I can circle back after I finish reading it to let you know how I would suggest adapting it for this platform/audience.
Chad
that would be great. thanks Lorenzo
While this is a beautiful sentiment, I think it’s important to acknowledge that animism is already a science. It is indigenous science. Everyone is indigenous to somewhere, and sometimes the study of where exactly you’re from and how your lineage got to their conclusions is the personal science. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the privileges you hold but in reality, adding the notion of “science” in front of animism feels like an unnecessary addendum, and is in a way, like colonization. It’s okay to be an animist and allow collective awareness to be your belief!
I appreciate you pushing back on me! Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I started replying from my phone the morning I got it, then accidentally swiped right, and Substack lost my draft.
The institutions of science really do carry a lot of colonizer baggage, huh? When I've done versions of the "are you a Scientific Animist?" conversation in person, way more people have taken issue with the "do you believe in science" part than the "do you believe some form of animism." As a result of these conversations, I updated the About page, which used to be a straight copy-paste of this post, to include a little more nuance about what exactly I'm talking about when I talk about science. https://scientificanimism.substack.com/about
I love the bits in Braiding Sweetgrass about Indigenous Science. There's one chapter in particular that describes a sort-of "Indigenous Science vs Academia Science" encounter https://www.litcharts.com/lit/braiding-sweetgrass/chapter-15. Braiding Sweetgrass is obviously dripping with animism, though I'm not sure it ever uses the word. There's also a great chapter where RWK distinguishes between the scientific process and "the scientific worldview." https://www.litcharts.com/lit/braiding-sweetgrass/chapter-28
It's interesting to me that you equate the two terms—"animism IS indigenous science." I see still some nuance between the two, and find it useful to have both. As "animism" becomes more zeitgeistey, I'd expect a whole bunch of white people to start calling themselves "animists" without doing any sort of conscious engagement with Indigenous cosmologies/sciences/peoples. One can believe that all/many things are animate, without doing any sort of science.
No shade on any form of animism (though maybe I will have shade for all the anti-vax, "raw water"-drinking white folks when/if they start co-opting the term). But for this Substack, I'm intentionally trying to carve out and explore the space inhabited by Kimmerer. An intentional marrying of Western scientific and Indigenous/animist inquiry. I'm not sure exactly what to call it, but I _think_ most people's conceptions of "science" and "animism" make "scientific animism" a pretty close approximation. I'm open to other ideas!
Are you potentially interested in writing an essay for this Substack? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Indigenous Science.
"I want to do Scientific Animism. With a community. As a culture. I want to get together with friends and practice it." I know I said this before but I think you're tapping into a need that is more widespread than most of us realize!