To clarify, they existed in cultures that were certain about ancestor spirits, tree spirits, rock spirits, etc., and believed the creation myths they passed on were universally true. This animistic approach to the world, where everything is possessed of spirit, is enchantment in its most vital form.
Thanks for the reply, shapethrower. These are fascinating topics and I'm glad folks are interested in looking at the different hunter/gatherers. I am interested in suggestions for books and links that I might pursue to increase my understanding in this area.
It may be the case that the most important difference between some hunter/gatherers and some westerners is that the western worldview tends to view the world as fundamentally knowable and controllable (in the sense that we will eventually be able to control all aspects of nature, even though we're not quite there yet) whereas we might find in some hunter/gatherer groups the idea that the world and even the self are not deeply knowable or controllable. For me, a worldview that routinely acknowledges aspects of the world that are beyond "the known" seems much more enchanted than a worldview that treats everything as fundamentally knowable.
So, for me, it may be that the "active ingredient" in an animist culture is not the "belief" in deities or "belief" that everything in the world has its own spirit or the "certitude" of the campfire stories, but rather the aspects of uncertainty and capriciousness in the world; the idea that the trees or animals or wind may do something that you didn't see coming. In this sense, you don't have to look to the stars at night to feel awe and mystery. In a fundamentally mysterious and capricious world, awe and mystery are everywhere in every aspect of day-to-day life. And, for bonus points, I think we can include our own consciousness and sense of self as part of the mysterious and capricious world.
As I mentioned before, some rituals of hunter/gatherers are playful and seem to have strong elements of play-acting or role-playing in order to honor the plastic nature of the self and the sense of meaning (this also relates to Michael's comments about the role of metaphor and conceptual frameworks--which some kinds of ritual can help us see more clearly as helpful and unhelpful in different contexts). In addition, I believe that some rituals are related to acknowledging and making pleas to whatever it is that is beyond our control in the world. I suppose we could look at still other features of hunter/gatherer groups, say some kinds of shamanism, as techniques for trying to make decisions in the face of overwhelming uncertainty. But the rituals and practices in my hypothetical animist group are ongoing because the uncertainty never goes away.
Incidentally, I tend to look at a lot of western spiritual ideas as rather disenchanted because they sometimes seem to suggest that they have it all worked out. From this perspective, some kinds of certainty are inherently disenchanting. Mystery is more enchanting to me.
We can know then other side in a variety of ways - astral travel, lucid dreaming and other states of consciousness. But translating that experience into ways we can understand this side is a difficult matter. What we understand as time and space on this side are not the same on the other. Also, we are habituated to a physical and biological frame of reference that does not translate - so our conceptual framework is not suited to translating other side material. Part of our consciousness is interlaced into our physical being - and we tend to see that as an essential component of who we are.
Hi Michael, thanks for your comments. I really like some of your formulations. In this first part, I would want to push the more extreme version of my model, which would suggest that the astral travel experience, the lucid dream, and other altered states are themselves the translated experience. I think I can see now that for my model, it's vital to consider that there may be some "thing" (terrible word choice, but no word is sufficient) that is BEYOND experience. So astral travel, lucid dream, mystical experience are still experience ...
I had to smile at Alex's question to the guest around minute 26:00 of the podcast: "I guess what I’m getting at is the underlying nature of spiritual experiences ... Is there both an underlying reality to spiritual experiences ... ?" I smile because it strikes me a classic assertive Alex question.
For me, I tend to think that the question is steeped in this paradigm of "everything must exist or not exist" which is the classical-logic paradigm that Moody challenges. According to Moody, if I understand him correctly, there may be some third "thing". It could be "imaginal" or "non-conceptual" or "pre-conceptual". And I think, Michael, that some of your comments here are playing to that edge.
What we understand as time and space on this side are not the same on the other.
I agree, Michael, if there is other side. ;) I get frustrated because sometimes folks in the spiritual community are focused on other angles of these conversations, and so they skip over this idea. The result is that people talk about the OTHER in a rather casual way that doesn't make sense to me.
What we understand as time and space on this side are not the same on the other. Also, we are habituated to a physical and biological frame of reference that does not translate - so our conceptual framework is not suited to translating other side material. Part of our consciousness is interlaced into our physical being - and we tend to see that as an essential component of who we are.
I like your idea here about conceptual framework. As you know, there is talk of how physics tends to skip over the "observer effect", but sometimes I think the spiritual community also skips over the observer effect and doesn't adequately address the power of our historical, cultural, and/or physiological conceptual frameworks. I think the "spiritual community" may be well served by weighing more heavily the "observer effect" and the power of our conceptual frameworks.
In fact there is constant traffic between what I call then physical and metaphysical dimensions of our reality - but it is mostly not literal, and tends to be metaphorical according to the content of our psyches. This is why some dreams are absurd metaphors that require interpretation - rarely any good in my experience (unless the interpreter is psychic).
I'm a little leary of the casualness of your "constant traffic" but I like the non-literal piece and the strong reference to the metaphorical aspects. Thanks again for the comments, Michael. I will look into the authors you mention. I enjoy following up on references people give here.
deep down I feel things need to be understood
Hi again, blaise. In some respectss I think this piece of your comment may in some way represent THE key aspect of the secular western attitude that may be driving us further away from enchantment. I think all of us well-meaning commentors tend to fall into this trap.
It suggests to me that my personal project moving forward will be to come up with some more specific angles on which areas of interest I would consider to be profitably pursuable in terms of coming to some common understanding, and which are more profitably understood to be not understandable at this time.
EDIT: I can see that I'm also trying to make my ideas understood, so I can see the unintentional irony of my comment here.