Is a forest a sentient being?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Can you explain the role of ipseity in sentience? Bernardo says that bacteria may be sentient. Does that mean they have a sense of self? Or, looking in the expanded direction, does a planet or a sun or galaxy or M@L or God have a sense of self? Can it all be instinctive? I get confused by this ipseity connection to sentience. Can you clarify?

I can try ... In the broadest sense, one can say it's tantamount to the premise that there's some quality it is like to be a unique sentient being, as an 'alter' of the one 'I' that looks out through all 'eyes', that renders it as discrete from other such beings ~ what BK refers to as a 'dissociated' state, however much one may not resonate with that term. So to take the example of the sparrow I mentioned elsewhere that was attracted by the apparency of another sparrow it perceived to be trapped behind the invisible barrier of a windowpane, whether as potential mate or intruder, clearly it feels some sense of being in relationship with one of its kind. So one presumes there is something unique it is like to identify as one of that kind ~ in this case 'sparrowness', with perhaps it even having a call that corresponds to that identification. Furthermore, one presumes that if there had been an apparent owl behind that glass, the sparrow would likely avoid it, as being other than sparrowness, and even a threat to sparrowness. However, it would seem there are degrees of ipseity, as there is clearly a difference when it comes to human sentient beings, in that with our sense of metacognitive egoic selfhood, one can also re-cognize that it's not another distinct human behind the glass, but actually a reflection of one's own self image.

So with regard to a forest being such a sentient being, in that there is something distinct it feels like to be a rainforest apart from a boreal forest, I suppose it is somehow conceivable. Still, there's the question of what criteria would one base this premise on, which would demonstrate that it isn't just a human projection upon it? In any case, I must confess that I don't envision a current collective ethos returning to that animistic mythos of a forest.

[Apanthropinist]

So with regard to a forest being such a sentient being, in that there is something distinct it feels like to be a rainforest apart from a boreal forest, I suppose it is somehow conceivable. Still, there's the question of what criteria would one base this premise on, which would demonstrate that it isn't just a human projection upon it? In any case, I must confess that I don't envision a current collective ethos returning to that animistic mythos of a forest.

Perhaps if it is viewed as a system rather than a 'thing' in itself, a system 'in process' never static but dynamic. Rather than trying to delineate it, as we are wont to do?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Perhaps if it is viewed as a system rather than a 'thing' in itself, a system 'in process' never static but dynamic. Rather than trying to delineate it, as we are wont to do?

Sure, as mentioned, one could conceive of a distinct ecosystem, e.g. a rainforest, or a tundra, being representative of a distinct sentient being, just as this corporeal biosystem is representative of this sentient being. Still, I'm not sure how one would demonstrate that to be the case, such that it can't be dismissed as our projection upon it.

[Apanthropinist]

Sure, as mentioned, one could conceive of a distinct ecosystem, e.g. a rainforest, or a tundra, being representative of a distinct sentient being, just as this corporeal biosystem is representative of this sentient being. Still, I'm not sure how one would demonstrate that to be the case, such that it can't be dismissed as our projection upon it.

Well fair to say that it is all 'living' in some way and a system, I mean the whole planet is a system of interconnection and interdependencies. But we are fond of naming the 'ten thousand things', and then King Milinda rides in on his not-chariot and confuses it further......we can't win but we can have cake and that's what I'm going to do now......

[Ben Iscatus]

Well someone has it all worked out:
https://www.earthgeomancy.net/Devas%20of%20Nature.html

[Lou Gold]

Perhaps if it is viewed as a system rather than a 'thing' in itself, a system 'in process' never static but dynamic. Rather than trying to delineate it, as we are wont to do?

Sure, as mentioned, one could conceive of a distinct ecosystem, e.g. a rainforest, or a tundra, being representative of a distinct sentient being, just as this corporeal biosystem is representative of this sentient being. Still, I'm not sure how one would demonstrate that to be the case, such that it can't be dismissed as our projection upon it.

Projection is associated with ALL models (myths), surely including BK's idealism. We converse easily about Idealism, Materialism, Eastern and Western religions, etc. Generally, the value of a model/myth is demonstrated by results in the real world of belief in a particular model/myth. According to the article, "Indigenous groups [generally believers in animist models/myths] currently manage around five percent of land on the planet, but that land contains 80 percent of Earth's biodiversity."

In another response you also say, "Still, there's the question of what criteria would one base this premise on, which would demonstrate that it isn't just a human projection upon it? In any case, I must confess that I don't envision a current collective ethos returning to that animistic mythos of a forest." I agree that there's no turning back but that does not mean that there's no possibility of an emergent "ancient-future" ethos with collective appeal. An example would be the Lovelock-Margulis "Gaia Hypothesis", which, of course, created quite a stir among the usual suspects in the scientific community. I agree that some kind of systems model is the potential meeting ground. Eco-philosophers like Joanna Macy take this approach.

[Lou Gold]

My God what a small world. In the article he mentions the town Puyo. From 11/98 to 11/99 every 12 days I flew to Quito for a 2 day visit with my wife and then back to Puyo. From Puyo I then was driven to our Central Processing Facility where my main office was located. I also had offices at two other locations one being 25 miles out into the virgin rain forest accessible only by helicopter. The other was in Tena. I had responsibilities on that project all the way to Baeza where ARCO's pipe line tied into the SOTE which is the trans Ecuadorian pipeline that terminated in Esmeraldas.

I had been working in Hong Kong for 2.5 years, which I hated and had an opportunity to work on this project, the Villano Project , Ecuador. Google it. It is still considered one of the most if not the most environmentally responsible project in the world. ARCO was purchased by BP in 2000 and no longer exists. Villano I think is now owned by an Italian outfit and is still in production. Ecuador became my wife and my home and now we are both citizens. I spent many, many hours talking to the Indigenous through a translator in their homes to get their take on things. I spent many many hours walking on trails in the virgin rain forest and over it in helicopters. I spent many evenings sitting on top of a 40000 barrel storage tank in meditation and reflection looking at the volcano Cotopaxi in the distance. We employed many indigenous because at one point this project had over 5000 people working on it. So I got see them work and their reaction to what was a strange and confusing world. I rode a helicopter back with an indigenous corpse in a body bag next to me. Many hated using the showers in the man camps and would go out and bathe in a stream. Unfortunately for this guy a huge tree fell over and crushed him in the middle of a storm. They got him back to the drillsite where he struggled to live for 4 days but he finally succumbed to his injuries. They tried like hell to get a helicopter out but weather conditions prevented it. So when I read this article I can appreciate the narrative the writer is pushing but the problem with all narratives is they are extremely myopic and fail to capture the nuances and believe me there are many.

Yup, Ed. On the ground reality is full of nuances and narrow narratives. My Lakota friend Ed Little Crow used to tell me, "When the Hoop is broken, it is broken for everyone." I followed your advice, googled it and found there's quite a bit of current controversy in the region. I'm sure some projects are much better and others much worse, so I'm not trying to counter the report of your experience. The legal principle centers around obtaining "Free, Prior, and Informed Consent" from the affected peoples and, yes, they too can be quite divided. It's always more complicated than the simple narrative. Turning from the politics toward the mindsets, the question remains whether an ecosystem is a being worthy of protection and who speaks for it?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Projection is associated with ALL models (myths), surely including BK's idealism.

For sure, given that sentience is defined as having the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, then making the case for what constitutes a sentient being/alter involves making the case for what feelings and sensations it would be experiencing. Even in the case of the sparrow example that is somewhat speculative and prone to projection, never mind in the case of speculating about an ostensible sentient being as represented by a forest. So just saying that in making a plausible case for such an entity, one has to also make the case for what feelings and sensations such an entity might be experiencing. And honestly, unlike the sparrow example, I've no idea what that might be, though curious nonetheless.

[Lou Gold]

Projection is associated with ALL models (myths), surely including BK's idealism.

For sure, given that sentience is defined as having the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, then making the case for what constitutes a sentient being/alter involves making the case for what feelings and sensations it would be experiencing. Even in the case of the sparrow example that is somewhat speculative and prone to projection, never mind in the case of speculating about an ostensible sentient being as represented by a forest. So just saying that in making a plausible case for such an entity, one has to also make the case for what feelings and sensations such an entity might be experiencing. And honestly, unlike the sparrow example, I've no idea what that might be, though curious nonetheless.

I have total respect for your (our) bewilderment ...

"... in the case of speculating about an ostensible sentient being as represented by a forest. So just saying that in making a plausible case for such an entity, one has to also make the case for what feelings and sensations such an entity might be experiencing. And honestly, unlike the sparrow example, I've no idea what that might be, though curious nonetheless."

Actually, I think the appropriate human projection from our own biosystem to a full ecosystem like a forest is quite simple. Each of us is a network of 40+ trillion cells, more than the total number of stars in the entire universe. Mostly, we feel this biosystem instinctively via the sensuality of pleasure and pain. It would be quite easy to project this onto a forest, an ocean, our planet depending on one (yes, only one is needed) necessary assumption: a forest, an ocean, our planet is a living being as we are. This is what animism taught. This is what is no longer taught. This is the difference making the difference.

[Lou Gold]

For those who might be interested, it's worthwhile listening to the great orator Chief Oren Lyons explain how these teachings unfold still in our modern times.

Oren Lyons continues with a discussion of sovereignty here.