Animism, new animism as described by thinkers like Graham Harvey, attempts to relate with the persons (human, rock, plant, animal, bird, ancestral, etc.) who are also members of the wider community of life. Animism sidesteps issues of atheism/theism and concentrates on living relationships.
The world we live in is made up of a complex interconnection of systems. Basically, I do not believe that there is any such thing as a truly closed system. Everything that we refer to as a system is in fact a subsystem of a potentially infinite interlinked matrix of such subsystems. I believe that what is understood and studied as a “system” is actually a boundary drawn around a collection of such subsystems for purposes of utility and limited by perception.
System is a word that we use to describe any “experience-cluster” that we can map as a set of interacting elements over time. Typically a system is mapped by identifying the pathways of information flow — as well as possibly the flow of energy, matter and other variables. But the “flow” of information is special, because only information can go from A to B while also staying at A.
That is all very abstract, I know. Sometimes I like the analogy of different maps. A geological map looks very different to a map of national boundaries, which in turn looks different to a road map. That is a matter of utility. Each map serves a different purpose so has to filter information in a different way.
Alternatively, we can become aware that we are all subsystems of the larger planetary system so beautifully described by Prof James Lovelock in the classic Gaia Hypothesis. And that larger planetary system is itself a dependent subsystem.
I understand life in terms of the causal feedback loops of these complex interlinked systems, thus all things are alive and all things related. That is enough for me. It is not necessary for me to take any theistic stance at all, including an atheistic one. My world includes intelligence and consciousness beyond the human, the rest is linguistics. This is not a pantheistic or panentheistic view, since each being is sufficient to itself and is not required to be a revelation of a higher divinity. However, the definitions of individuality can shift with perception, at times two becoming one, or one becoming greater or less than before.
That which is a person, the personality of a being, is a perceived (not an objective) quality. Personality has no existence outside of perception. Even without company, the person perceives self. The illusion of objective personality is created by the ability to perceive ones own being.
There is also evidence that causal feedback loops within this universal matrix of interconnected subsystems are not restricted by our perception of the direction of time, at least on a quantum level (I mention that only to indicate that there is more to this universe than our current understanding would allow).
I like the metaphor of Indra’s net, in which existence is represented by an infinite net with a jewel located at each vertex, and each jewel contains the reflection of every other jewel. And in each reflected jewel…
In this view, “I” am a constantly shifting sub-matrix of such interconnected subsystems. I am like the eddy in the stream that forms as a consequence of the coming together of various forces.
Bohm: …What I’m suggesting is that in the macroscopic world, such a thing as a tree is built out of the implicate order – indeed, is the implicate order, which makes possible its living qualities. If we perceive the tree in this way, rather than as a bunch of dead particles into which the property of life is somehow infused when the seed is planted, then its aliveness ceases to be such a mystery.
Wilber: Life is then a continuum: everything is alive?
Bohm: Everything is alive. What we call dead is an abstraction
The Holographic paradigm and other paradoxes by Ken Wilber
I have no need for the supernatural in this world-view. There is room enough for non-human consciousness, though I do not raise it to the level of deity. The one mystery is the simple mystery of being. How is it that there is this experience of being? And I’m content for that to be mystery.
If pushed, as a bad joke, I describe myself as a systems animist. But I think it is an accurate description. The very action of this interelated network of subsystems is what I understand by life, so I believe everything to be alive.
So to me spirituality involves exploring this interconnected existence. Understanding that the boundary of “me” is not a static thing. Exploring states of consciousness that allow me to experience constructing my perception of the world in new ways. Ultimately aiming to understand this interconnected universe more directly. Since the only tool I have with which to that is my neurology (everything I experience is experienced through my senses), every aspect of my spiritual practice is first and foremost a psychological practice. It is the intent that makes it spiritual.
