Panpsychism

Panpsychism

by Marco M. Pardi

“Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.” William James. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. 1902

All comments are welcome and will receive a reply.

CAVEAT: If you are a convinced and confirmed believer in Materialist Scientism and are unwilling to consider the matrix of Science and Philosophy you might find your time better spent elsewhere. However, I encourage everyone to provide their comments. Those who wish to explore a broader context before or while reading this piece are referred to my earlier piece, The Case for Animatism. This may be found by clicking on the Uncategorized link and paging down to the earlier entries.

This post is being written in response to the following article:

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? – Scientific American

Most readers of this column know that my early childhood years were spent as a POR – Prisoner Of Religion. Born into a strict Roman Catholic family, I knew nothing else. But not knowing a system of thought by name did not mean not having a system of thought, and my system of thought began as I took the words of the Catholic catechism seriously and began to feel there were internal problems.

Before we get to those problems lets reconsider a couple of other terms: Science, Philosophy, and Panpsychism. The term science is relatively new. Derived from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge, it first appeared in very limited circles (according to some) in the 17^th century and remained quite obscure up into the 20^th century. Throughout history the people we now call scientists were known as philosophers, not scientists. Even today, American universities still award the Ph.D. – Doctorate of Philosophy, in even the “hard” sciences such as physics. During the same period the field of Philosophy itself fell into a lesser repute as the drive toward Materialism eclipsed the value of thought.

We could say this was an expected development in the quickly developing separation of formal religion, a belief system, and the “facts on the ground” emphasis of emerging science.

Philosophy, on the other hand, derived from the Greek philosophos – lovers of wisdom. Mainly applied to questions of the nature of knowledge, it is first recognized in the PreSocratics of Greece in the 600s B.C.E. Although investigations into how one knows what one knows, even quantitatively, would seem fundamental to all science, philosophy has largely yielded the study of materially measurable things to the emerging sciences which weigh their value by external results.

Panpsychism is also a relatively new term, perhaps crafted to deflect the wrath of the Fundamentalists among us. The concept to which it applies goes far back in history under the name pantheism, the claim that God is everywhere, in everything. The dominant forms of monotheism (one God) reject pantheism. The central grounds for such rejection appear to be the desire of the monotheists to fashion a God which has a personal identity including gender, a set of personal preferences and a will to bring them into being, and a locality to which believers can aspire after death. Gaining the acceptance of such a God then enables the power brokers of monotheistic systems to proclaim they, and they alone, know and can interpret the will of this God. – meaning power over the people at large.

It is credibly argued that even systems portrayed as polytheistic, such as the Hindu tradition, are truly monotheistic in that the various lesser gods are simply incarnations or manifestations of the ultimate and one god Atman. But Atman is nowhere near as defined and constricted as the God of monotheism; “Atman” can be considered a means of expressing the oneness of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Any attempt to define and localize this would be considered mistaking an incarnation/manifestation for the whole.

Looking back at those three omnis, do they sound familiar? They should. They are foundational to the God of Western monotheism. They are foremost in the catechism answers to the question, Who and what is God?

My childhood was pretty solitary, though that was fine with me as it afforded me more time to observe the flora and fauna of my world by day and read about them by night. And, the mantra, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence lay behind my eyes.

Years later, as a student of Anthropology, I learned about Ethology – the study of animal behavior, William James – known as the Father of American Psychology, Alan Watts – at one time the foremost interpreter of Eastern philosophy, B.F. Skinner – the Behaviorist who thoroughly trashed the overly convenient concept “instinct”, early and modern gatherer-scavenger-hunter populations, domestication, and the inherent mysticism in the art of early Man.

As I absorbed the writings, works, and discoveries in these fields and many more I was surprised only because I found myself so often thinking, But, of course. And I was concerned that so few were waking to the realities that have always been around us. For example, the common phrase, Dumb animals. At its best I realized it referred to the fact that no non-humans speak like us. At its worst it attacked the intellect of these non-humans. Now we have copious data on the songs and languages of whales, dolphins, wolves, a myriad of others, and even cows. Now we have data clearly showing us how plants communicate. Humans live in darkened sensory bottles with only narrow band width vision, hearing, smell, and taste. Our instruments have helped us uncork those bottles but it is our minds which must expand to accommodate what there is out there to experience. Many remain asleep.

As I read about early gatherer-scavenger-hunter groups and their modern descendants and closely examined their art work and symbolism I felt I understood the dramatic shift from their view of non-human animals to that of the populations who adopted pastoralism and agriculture. GSH groups, whether early or current, must understand the minds of the animals on which they prey. Although not commonly a prey species, the common crow provides an example any hunter will recognize. When approaching a murder of crows feeding in a field you will recognize at least one who is not on the ground feeding but rather on a nearby tree or some other vantage point. This crow is on sentry duty, providing the crows on the ground a warning when someone approaches. What the competent observer will note is that the sentry will sound the alarm much faster if the intruder has something in his hand. Show your open hands and the sentry will allow you much closer. I very much doubt many people are even aware of that. Yet, similar devices are found in other species as well. Hunters who intend to remain among the living must learn how their prey thinks.

“Wait, what?!?! Animals think?!?! How unscientific!!!”

The artwork and the folklore of the GSH groups clearly and plainly tell us the respect, even reverence they felt for the non-human animals around them. Across the planet we see depictions of therianthropes, a pictorial blending of human and non-human figures apparently depicting shamans communing with the non-human animals important to the survival of the band. A famous example is “The Sorcerer” in the cave at Les Trois Freres in France. Less well known are the depictions of shamans of the Kalahari San Bushmen with eland antelopes. We know from modern accounts of the reverence the hunter extends to the soul of the animal he has killed. Contrast this with the attitudes of pastoralists and agriculturalists; very quickly the animals being herded, flocked, and eventually domesticated became insensitive commodities to be bred, traded, or slaughtered at the whim of the “owners”. I have personally witnessed utter brutality inflicted upon “dumb animals”. To this day I wonder about the psyche of the young children who raise domesticated animals, bond with them as treasured companions, and send them to slaughter. Using a logic I cannot fathom, they justify this as a means of food production.

I think the herding and domestication of animals laid the groundwork for the materialist separation of Man from all the rest of the natural world. This ethic is simply unknown among GSH populations. Interestingly, the Western monotheistic traditions enshrined this separation in their fundamental scriptures during this same period. But in so doing they formalized a fundamental contradiction: In creating and describing their God they invoked the three omnis; omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. This made it impossible to say God is in one act but not in another. While believers may piously point to some “godly” act they are not thereby able to dismiss other acts as “ungodly”. While believers may claim the possession of some “divine spark” (the original meaning of the word inspiration) they cannot deny it to any other form of existence, seen or unseen. The very act of such selective disposition is a glaring pronouncement of Materialism, based on the premise that qualities can be quantified and selectively distributed according to some presumably “divinely inspired” writ. Consciousness is one such quality.

In seeking alternatives to the Materialist dogma some have looked to Asian philosophies. Yet here, too, the tendencies of the Western “Cafeteria Catholic” (picking and choosing among the doctrinal pronouncements on offer) are evident. For example, the well known dichotomy of the Yin/Yang. The contrast of the interwoven Light and Dark is obvious. But what seems less obvious to the Western dabbler is the meaning inherent in the symbol: the interweaving of the elements is captured in the concept, Hsiang Sheng, “mutually arising”. I am what I am by virtue of everything I am not; I am where I am because everything else is where it is. I am, then, as a manifestation of Atman, an At Once expression of Allness – “past, present, and future, that which was, that which is, and that which is becoming”. In Alan Watts’ terms, Consciousness is the river, forever flowing away yet always coming back, and never the same. It does not reside in only a select species.

No, don’t expect to come upon me sitting in my garden talking to a rock. But please be accepting of my proclivity to see you in context.