More than Stories, More than Myths: Animal/Human/Nature(s) in Traditional Ecological

More than Stories, More than Myths: Animal/Human/Nature(s) in Traditional Ecological Worldviews

Reason and rationality, upon which modern, westernized, societies have been founded, have powerfully characterized the nature of human relations with other species and with the natural world. However, countless indigenous and traditional worldviews tell of a very different reality in which humans, conceived of as instinctual and intuitive, are a part of a complex web of ecological relationships. Other species, elements of the natural world, and people are active participants in relations overflowing with communications, interactions sometimes recorded in ethnographies, or as ‘myths’ and ‘stories’.

The present article draws upon a range of traditions to explore the biaseswhich shap e how indigenous and traditional life-ways are represented in westernized contexts; the phenomenon of receiving direct insight or intuitive knowing from more-than-human worlds; and the numerous valuable understandings regarding the nature of the human being, other species, and how to live well, that are offered by a deeper comprehension of different worldviews. I also argue that the various capacities for instinctual and intuitive knowledge which accompanies these life-ways are endemic to the human species yet overlooked, the correction of which might work to usefully recalibrate our ethical relations with each other, and with other life on earth.

A metaphysician I studied for a time emphasized the importance of recognizing that humankind's spiritual nature evolves. Another way to say this is that, just as animals evolving on this planet also evolve instincts so that it is reasonable to think a contemporary animal will have more sophisticated instincts that its counterpart thousands of years ago, so do our spiritual instincts evolve over time.

Rupert Sheldrake's Hypothesis of Formative Causation supports this idea as well.

Sepie's essay seems based on the assumption that we are the same as our aboriginal counterparts. Even from one of my first essay attempts to argue that mind is precursor to physical, it has been clear to me that our contemporary expression of supposedly aboriginal sensitivity to nature is integral to our spiritual nature, albeit usually unrecognized. (Here Spiritual means primal or underlying motivation rather than religious.)

On page 20, Sepies wrote: "Intuition, like the religious ‘miracle’, is generally considered an oddity or anomaly. We do have some words for it, such as second sight (or, ‘the sight’), the sixth sense, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and others, however, these are considered as ‘spiritual beliefs’ and studied by scholars of religion. They are not necessarily considered to be real, but ‘true for those who believe’." (Bold emphasis added by me.)

I suppose Parapsychology does have a few religious scholars, but many of them approach the subject with the point of view that the phenomena are real and applicable to our daily living. While the studies tend to focus on superstar practitioners, it has been clearly shown that the abilities held by shamans of old are more or less routinely applied by all of us in daily life. First Sight Theory is a good roundup of that study.

Rather than pining for the past, it is for us to self-educate and shine a light for others to follow. By taking a conscious self-centric perspective, rather than identifying with our body, such questions become more about lucidity and the need to teach. Sepie's essay seems to indicate yet another Ph.D. who thinks ESP is magical thinking.

Regarding 'pining for the past', that's something I did for a while, for example visiting ancient megalithic sites, which tend to have no real documented history, and thus are ripe for triggering a deep sense of curiosity about their builders. I followed other areas of interest, such as ancient Egypt and so on. But eventually - and it has taken me a long time, I've come to realise that what I'm looking for is right here, today. By 'here' I mean the daily existence of the present life is as rich, or a richer resource than any amount of musing on the past.

Snap!
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-r...lonisation

Regarding 'pining for the past', that's something I did for a while, for example visiting ancient megalithic sites, which tend to have no real documented history, and thus are ripe for triggering a deep sense of curiosity about their builders. I followed other areas of interest, such as ancient Egypt and so on. But eventually - and it has taken me a long time, I've come to realise that what I'm looking for is right here, today. By 'here' I mean the daily existence of the present life is as rich, or a richer resource than any amount of musing on the past.

I do study a few ancient references. They have become talking points for my effort to show that what we seek to understand today is not new. The reason that seems important is that some concepts rise above the question of truth related to the physical, and therefore are timeless. Those are the stuff of revelation. It is after we have been told that we begin to rationalize a more convenient truth. In that way, religions tend to apply social engineering to those basic concepts.

For instance, while the provenance of the Emerald Tablet is questionable, the included concepts are demonstrably ancient. They are more or less repeated in the Katha Upanishad and as a glancing blow in John 14 of the Bible. Hermetic versions of the Tarot echo those concepts and we see it here and there expressed by modern teachers. Yet, New Age and contemporary religious expressions of those concepts are simple mystical pablum.

So, to that extent, the author of that article has a point. It is just that, as you say, the here and now is where those ideas must be expressed. The most modern expression I have found is the various forms of mindfulness. I expressed it like this on the back of a book: (Please forgive me for a little self-promotion.)

Immortal Self-Centric Mindfulness

The most important understanding seekers of spiritual maturity must come to is the difference between lucidity and hyperlucidity. Lucidity is the degree to which we are able to clearly sense information from our mostly unconscious mind. Hyperlucidity is a term used in the Implicit Cosmology for a complex of behaviors motivated by the belief we are lucid when we are actually only sensing what we have been taught to expect.

The second most important understanding is that lucidity is the seeker’s objective, but that it is achieved in small steps. The only real conscious influence we have on our mostly unconscious mind is the expression of intention. This means that we must learn to consciously examine what we think is true. Mind changes only slowly, and so, the seeker’s objective is to habitually express the intention to align perception with the actual nature of reality.

In the first book, Your Immortal Self, the process of consciously seeking greater lucidity is referred to as the Mindful Way. Many people practice mindfulness simply to improve personal wellbeing. A few step onto the Mindful Way to seek greater understanding of their immortal nature and the nature of the reality they inhabit. Even fewer remain as wayshowers for those who seek greater lucidity.
The fact of our immortality is explained in Your Immortal Self. This book, Exploring the Mindful Way, includes twenty-one essays explaining some of the more important concepts encountered on the Mindful Way. While you will benefit from first reading Your Immortal Self, there are sufficient explanations in this book to make it a stand-alone text.

Will you be a wayshower?