#anthropocentricity

[onlyhurtforaminute]

POWER CONCEPT-SYNTHESIS OF THE CONFLICT

[pagansquare]

It is far easier to establish a relationship with something that is not an abstract. We often anthropomorphize deity and other beings in this way, enabling us to relate to them in a way that makes sense to us. More and more as I travel along this spiritual path, I am finding this anthropomorphization far too limiting, far too restrictive. A cloud is nothing like me, yet there is much I can learn from a cloud. I do not have to give it human characteristics in order to relate to it – it’s gone beyond that.

Joanna van der Hoeven, "Paganism, Anthropomorphization, and Anthropocentricity"

[pagansquare]

So much within nature is not defined by gender – scientifically or socially speaking. There isn’t always a male/female coupling in the natural world – there exists gender neutral or genderless beings, hermaphrodites and homosexuality throughout. Too much focus can be placed on a male/female union, or ritual, wherein we essentially become defined based upon what plumbing we are born with. For me, it is far too restrictive.

Joanna van der Hoeven, "Paganism, Anthropomorphization, and Anthropocentricity"

[amatureandiee-blog]

The Fly and the Cigarette

Rob Walker begins "Secret Lives of Things", an essay exploring the concepts of Ian Bogost's "Alien Phenomenology", by speculating that part of our human nature is to incorporate ourselves into all aspects of our life, not only how our jobs, the weather and the neighbor, who always mows their lawn at 6:30am, affect us but also how we are seen by the eyes of animals or any one "thing" in general; what must Fluffy think of us? When in reality the only knowledge you maintain of your precious Fluffy has you attached to it. As humans we are unable to pull ourselves from the equation and not just when speaking about our family pets, even that carries anthropocentric undertones. What of the vas of flowers on your dining table at home all day? What of the quarter long forgotten in your couch cushion or the shopping cart in the vacant lot on the rough side of town?

Imagine a table and on it you sit, relatively small in size, a box in shape; in the beginning of your life you contained twenty cylinder, feather weight objects but right now six have been taken from you. Usually you get carted around from place to place but today you remained on the table. You are a box of cigarettes, opened, partially filled and for the moment closed, labeled side up. It is quiet, perhaps you were forgotten today. The table on which you lay remains unoccupied by anything save for yourself. Time goes by but who knows how much before you hear it; a light buzz, an almost hum in the air. A flying object hovers close by zooming multiple directions before settling next to you. It is considerable grotesque with it's bulging eyes. You know it to be a fly from your time spent in transit before you even hit the shelves but that was nearly a week ago. It flings itself back up before settling on your shiny wrapping and despite your disgust its all you can do; you are immobile, a box. 

To address the question of knowing what something is without experiencing it for ones self Walker explained that you must envision what it would be to be an object, then introduce a second object. By relating with the second object you might know what it is to be the former. In my attempt above it proved to be highly difficult to imagine two objects that were both animate or inanimate without any preconceived feelings from time spent as a human and all together it felt just a little bit silly.

In order to know any of these objects is merely speculation. We will never actually know what it is to be a solitary blade of grass for a day or through the seasons but the thing that seemed most ironic about Walkers philosophical attempt to do so was that it was not cohesive to fundamental philosophy itself. Some of the earliest philosophers' most basic ideas were on knowledge and existence and begged the question, how can one know that anything truly still exists when we are not present to witness it in its existence and how does one know it is not the mind creating present surrounding and sensations alone?