194
Subtle Agroecologies
information can be deciphered and contribute to knowledge. That deciphering can happen between
species and other natural phenomena, for example when animals anticipate specifc natural events
before they actually happen. Just as learning to read helps us to decipher the meaning of letters on
a page, we can learn to read subtle information in other forms.
Yet, how can we derive information from sources with which we cannot communicate in the traditional (verbal or written) sense? Panpsychism 8 is an ontological theory that considers everything
in the universe as having ‘an interior, subjective reality’ (de Quincey, 2002: 105). Just as animism
recognises soul or life force within phenomena, panpsychism speaks of consciousness or mind
(Larson, 2014). Such views were described by early western philosophers 9 but can be traced much
further back to pre-philosophical cosmologies. They also still feature in contemporary (animistic
and pantheistic) cosmologies that incorporate shamanic techniques (de Quincey, 2002: 105: 110–26).
Referring back to de Quincey’s view of consciousness as the missing link between matter
and energy, we can consider consciousness as the functional, mental state of access beyond our
bodily boundaries (Van Gulick, 2018), and also as being inherent in other beings and phenomena. This implies that techniques of expanded consciousness can be a way to communicate with
other-than-human-beings without necessarily sharing the same (or any) capacity for language.
BROADCASTING BETWEEN BODY AND ENVIRONMENT
Many cultures see body and environment as inseparable, interrelated and continuous. Case studies
show that body and self, person and environment and past and present are interconnected (Grau,
2005). Coding and transmitting meaning is a crucial topic within anthropology. This happens both
within and outside of the body, and these internal and external pathways are not separate. Indeed,
‘the mental world—the mind—the world of information processing—is not limited by the skin’
(Bateson, 1972: 460). Quantum physicist David Bohm also explored the interconnection of body
and environment (Bohm, 1985). His concept of ‘soma signifcance’ describes how meaning arises
both through physical responses (adrenalin fow, increased heart rate and blood pressure, pain and
other nervous system responses) and through external sound waves, gestures, textual objects and
technology. Indeed, this links up ‘the whole of society in one vast web of soma-signifcant and
signa-somatic activity’ (Bohm, 1985: 78). Our material environment is then a ‘somatic result’ of
the (ever-changing) meaning we attribute to objects. Meaning is not static, fxed or complete, but
rather a structure that constantly extends and actualises, accommodating fexibly for the movement
of ongoing, unfolding meaning (Bohm, 1985: 79–82).
This structure bears strong resemblance with anthropologist Tim Ingold’s ‘meshwork’, a feld of
relational involvement in the world in which relation does not ‘happen’ between two phenomena,
but exists as a ‘trail of movement or growth… along which life is lived’ (Ingold, 2011: 69, ital. in
original). While relations in a network imply two, previously ‘separate’, elements and an existence
of some kind prior to integration into the network, in a meshwork ‘things are their relations’ (Ingold,
2011: 70, ital. in original), through multiple trails, pathways and interwoven lines. Ingold questions
whether ‘what we have been accustomed to calling “the environment” might not be better envisaged
as a domain of entanglement. It is within such a tangle of interlaced trails, continually ravelling
here and unravelling there, that beings grow or ‘issue forth’ along the lines of their relationships’
(ibid: 71).
Important for this argument, Ingold incorporates animacy into his theory, not as ‘projected onto
objects’ by human persons, nor as ‘the result of an infusion of spirit into substance, or of agency
into materiality, but (…) ontologically prior to their differentiation’ (2011: 68, ital. in original).
8 From Greek: ‘pan means all, and psyche means soul or mind’ (Sheldrake, 2017: 84–85, ital. in original).
9 De Quincey refers to Pythagoras’ mathematical-material forms, Plato’s substance-Form and Aristotle’s hylomorphic
matter-form, as attempts to understand underlying ‘unlimited’, ‘immortal’ or ‘spark’ essence that shapes a material manifestation of form (de Quincey, 2002: 112, capitalisation in original). Earlier philosophers include Thales, Anaximander
and Anaximenes (ibid: 110–111).
Subtle Agroecologies
information can be deciphered and contribute to knowledge. That deciphering can happen between
species and other natural phenomena, for example when animals anticipate specifc natural events
before they actually happen. Just as learning to read helps us to decipher the meaning of letters on
a page, we can learn to read subtle information in other forms.
Yet, how can we derive information from sources with which we cannot communicate in the traditional (verbal or written) sense? Panpsychism 8 is an ontological theory that considers everything
in the universe as having ‘an interior, subjective reality’ (de Quincey, 2002: 105). Just as animism
recognises soul or life force within phenomena, panpsychism speaks of consciousness or mind
(Larson, 2014). Such views were described by early western philosophers 9 but can be traced much
further back to pre-philosophical cosmologies. They also still feature in contemporary (animistic
and pantheistic) cosmologies that incorporate shamanic techniques (de Quincey, 2002: 105: 110–26).
Referring back to de Quincey’s view of consciousness as the missing link between matter
and energy, we can consider consciousness as the functional, mental state of access beyond our
bodily boundaries (Van Gulick, 2018), and also as being inherent in other beings and phenomena. This implies that techniques of expanded consciousness can be a way to communicate with
other-than-human-beings without necessarily sharing the same (or any) capacity for language.
BROADCASTING BETWEEN BODY AND ENVIRONMENT
Many cultures see body and environment as inseparable, interrelated and continuous. Case studies
show that body and self, person and environment and past and present are interconnected (Grau,
2005). Coding and transmitting meaning is a crucial topic within anthropology. This happens both
within and outside of the body, and these internal and external pathways are not separate. Indeed,
‘the mental world—the mind—the world of information processing—is not limited by the skin’
(Bateson, 1972: 460). Quantum physicist David Bohm also explored the interconnection of body
and environment (Bohm, 1985). His concept of ‘soma signifcance’ describes how meaning arises
both through physical responses (adrenalin fow, increased heart rate and blood pressure, pain and
other nervous system responses) and through external sound waves, gestures, textual objects and
technology. Indeed, this links up ‘the whole of society in one vast web of soma-signifcant and
signa-somatic activity’ (Bohm, 1985: 78). Our material environment is then a ‘somatic result’ of
the (ever-changing) meaning we attribute to objects. Meaning is not static, fxed or complete, but
rather a structure that constantly extends and actualises, accommodating fexibly for the movement
of ongoing, unfolding meaning (Bohm, 1985: 79–82).
This structure bears strong resemblance with anthropologist Tim Ingold’s ‘meshwork’, a feld of
relational involvement in the world in which relation does not ‘happen’ between two phenomena,
but exists as a ‘trail of movement or growth… along which life is lived’ (Ingold, 2011: 69, ital. in
original). While relations in a network imply two, previously ‘separate’, elements and an existence
of some kind prior to integration into the network, in a meshwork ‘things are their relations’ (Ingold,
2011: 70, ital. in original), through multiple trails, pathways and interwoven lines. Ingold questions
whether ‘what we have been accustomed to calling “the environment” might not be better envisaged
as a domain of entanglement. It is within such a tangle of interlaced trails, continually ravelling
here and unravelling there, that beings grow or ‘issue forth’ along the lines of their relationships’
(ibid: 71).
Important for this argument, Ingold incorporates animacy into his theory, not as ‘projected onto
objects’ by human persons, nor as ‘the result of an infusion of spirit into substance, or of agency
into materiality, but (…) ontologically prior to their differentiation’ (2011: 68, ital. in original).
8 From Greek: ‘pan means all, and psyche means soul or mind’ (Sheldrake, 2017: 84–85, ital. in original).
9 De Quincey refers to Pythagoras’ mathematical-material forms, Plato’s substance-Form and Aristotle’s hylomorphic
matter-form, as attempts to understand underlying ‘unlimited’, ‘immortal’ or ‘spark’ essence that shapes a material manifestation of form (de Quincey, 2002: 112, capitalisation in original). Earlier philosophers include Thales, Anaximander
and Anaximenes (ibid: 110–111).