This is a long comment! In the end I'm fully with this thinking, but I'd like to point out the discomforts I felt along the way. Let's start with this quote:
> What distinguishes these communities is not just their ability to survive but also their capacity to thrive within functional societies marked by strong social bonds. They also seem to live in profound harmony with the more-than-human world, unburdened by the pressures of modern life.
This seems to me to suffer from survivorship bias <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias> The cultures that have survived for a long time are the ones which have been well-adapted to their environment, and have achieved a long-term stability. Later, you say “indigenous knowledge systems have stood the test of time,” but here it seems to me that survivorship bias is very clear. The knowledge systems that we see now *are* just the ones that have survived. But also, if I understand correctly, there have been ancient, “indigenous” non-Western societies that have imploded because of ecological collapse, just like ours seems to be heading for.
The Buchholz passage risks falling into the myth of the noble savage <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Noble_savage> so I would enjoy seeing a more up front critique of this. It does comes in the end, and I do agree with the Gary Lachman quote there.
But as an aim, an ideal, I am completely in agreement. I would love to live in harmony with nature and with my neighbour.
I rather wince at an uncritical citation of “Avatar”, not only because its narrative is so formulaic, but also because the _Na'vi_ culture seems highly conformist — is that what we really want? My son was recently reflecting on the “pleasantness of Singapore”. Do I think that benevolent authoritarianism is a good way to go? I'm torn; I can see both sides.
So I like your qualifications. “To some extent”, yes!
So, how can we understand the challenge in “integrating indigenous wisdoms”? I very much agree that it is to do with context. I guess I would approach from a slightly different angle: if we see a society that has lived in harmony and stability with their surrounding nature over many centuries, then I take that as evidence that their whole way of life, including their belief systems and related wisdom, is well-adapted to their natural context.
There are lots of things I like here. One of them is the sense that we need to accept “existential discomfort”, particularly as individuals. Yes, our current culture is, and has for a long time been, emphasising or even indoctrinating us to seeing ourselves primarily as individuals. That does need to change. And yes, a non-individualistic worldview has been a part of many indigenous cultures.
I see the long quotation as very much in line with the insights of Iain McGilchrist, in different terms. Where _Restoring the Kinship Worldview_ has “heart”, perhaps McGilchrist would read “right hemisphere”. Maybe this can lead towards a strong coherence … the challenge seems to me to be of listening to all these different perspectives; looking beyond the particular language and words used. I'd say: let's simultaneously embrace wisdoms ancient and modern, while clearly opposing suggestions that it is necessary to embrace one particular one, whatever it is called.
Fertile soil, if I understand correctly, is wonderfully complex, not merely a matter of how much nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium it has <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer>; and nurturing it involves nurturing this microbiodiversity. I am fully in line with the project of nurturing the rich interplay of philosophical diversity. Part of this I call “ontological commoning”.
As always, that you Simon. I agree with all of what you are saying and some of it has been on my mind for a while and I failed to articulate in the letter. There is so many nuances to this whole topic and I would like to unpack it - as far as that is even possible. Even the question what indigenous means is a lot. And I feel like there is a superficial and romantisized idea around it.
Thank you! Nuance … what we need with any complex topic, while polarizing partisans too often shout down any nuances. Indeed, the term "indigenous" seems to me to be based primarily on colonial experiences … it's so much clearer in Australasia or the Americas, but who were the indigenous people in Europe, and how much does it matter? I guess almost everyone in Africa, Asia and Europe comes from the stock of some invader or other, and invaders often bring some good along with the more immediately obvious bad. I'm reminded of that scene in the Life of Brian: "what have the Romans ever done for us?" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ>
This is a most important, delicate, and sensitive subject. And again, thanks for bringing it up in such a careful and balanced way.
Thanks Göran.
Jessica, I'm so glad you addressed this delicate subject with such a wise and sensitive undertone; thank you👌
Thank you for the kind words Göran 🙏
This is a long comment! In the end I'm fully with this thinking, but I'd like to point out the discomforts I felt along the way. Let's start with this quote:
> What distinguishes these communities is not just their ability to survive but also their capacity to thrive within functional societies marked by strong social bonds. They also seem to live in profound harmony with the more-than-human world, unburdened by the pressures of modern life.
This seems to me to suffer from survivorship bias <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias> The cultures that have survived for a long time are the ones which have been well-adapted to their environment, and have achieved a long-term stability. Later, you say “indigenous knowledge systems have stood the test of time,” but here it seems to me that survivorship bias is very clear. The knowledge systems that we see now *are* just the ones that have survived. But also, if I understand correctly, there have been ancient, “indigenous” non-Western societies that have imploded because of ecological collapse, just like ours seems to be heading for.
The Buchholz passage risks falling into the myth of the noble savage <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Noble_savage> so I would enjoy seeing a more up front critique of this. It does comes in the end, and I do agree with the Gary Lachman quote there.
But as an aim, an ideal, I am completely in agreement. I would love to live in harmony with nature and with my neighbour.
I rather wince at an uncritical citation of “Avatar”, not only because its narrative is so formulaic, but also because the _Na'vi_ culture seems highly conformist — is that what we really want? My son was recently reflecting on the “pleasantness of Singapore”. Do I think that benevolent authoritarianism is a good way to go? I'm torn; I can see both sides.
So I like your qualifications. “To some extent”, yes!
So, how can we understand the challenge in “integrating indigenous wisdoms”? I very much agree that it is to do with context. I guess I would approach from a slightly different angle: if we see a society that has lived in harmony and stability with their surrounding nature over many centuries, then I take that as evidence that their whole way of life, including their belief systems and related wisdom, is well-adapted to their natural context.
There are lots of things I like here. One of them is the sense that we need to accept “existential discomfort”, particularly as individuals. Yes, our current culture is, and has for a long time been, emphasising or even indoctrinating us to seeing ourselves primarily as individuals. That does need to change. And yes, a non-individualistic worldview has been a part of many indigenous cultures.
I see the long quotation as very much in line with the insights of Iain McGilchrist, in different terms. Where _Restoring the Kinship Worldview_ has “heart”, perhaps McGilchrist would read “right hemisphere”. Maybe this can lead towards a strong coherence … the challenge seems to me to be of listening to all these different perspectives; looking beyond the particular language and words used. I'd say: let's simultaneously embrace wisdoms ancient and modern, while clearly opposing suggestions that it is necessary to embrace one particular one, whatever it is called.
Fertile soil, if I understand correctly, is wonderfully complex, not merely a matter of how much nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium it has <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer>; and nurturing it involves nurturing this microbiodiversity. I am fully in line with the project of nurturing the rich interplay of philosophical diversity. Part of this I call “ontological commoning”.
As always, that you Simon. I agree with all of what you are saying and some of it has been on my mind for a while and I failed to articulate in the letter. There is so many nuances to this whole topic and I would like to unpack it - as far as that is even possible. Even the question what indigenous means is a lot. And I feel like there is a superficial and romantisized idea around it.
Thank you! Nuance … what we need with any complex topic, while polarizing partisans too often shout down any nuances. Indeed, the term "indigenous" seems to me to be based primarily on colonial experiences … it's so much clearer in Australasia or the Americas, but who were the indigenous people in Europe, and how much does it matter? I guess almost everyone in Africa, Asia and Europe comes from the stock of some invader or other, and invaders often bring some good along with the more immediately obvious bad. I'm reminded of that scene in the Life of Brian: "what have the Romans ever done for us?" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ>