Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the notion that inanimate objects and even trees have feelings is fundamentally unsound" It may seem unsound from the perspective of ordinary waking consciousness, and certain materialistic[1], physicalist[2], or naturalistic[3] philosophies. But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism…
> But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism[8] and religions which hold animistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic beliefs. Excellent, doctrines do tend to be self-contained. IF X, THEN Y. In the mean time, I bring up an important fact: we have always depended decisively on how well we…
should read:
Take much care to ensure that you are not doubting everything, instead of being merely open, like a scientist is to new evidence and a better "map" for the "territory". As someone once eloquently put it, there are two ways to glide easily through life: