back to "my AR pages"-index

Animated units-of-meaning

a short essay by Palang Latif

Where it came from

The human sphere has been and is that of shared interest, that of the political sphere which became political because of equal standards, equal desires, equal goals, because of all which grew out of the community live of the human groups. The animal was the classification for a merely animated being, a being endowed only with "zoe", that was that form of live which is merely "being" but which is not endowed with a higher "human-like" meaning and potential. The animal life fell out of any inter-political context because the borders between nature and man were clear: the world would only turn around the human interest, around that which represented "will", in a strictly self-serving and monopolised power.

In ancient times the human setting was tightly hierarchical, and the lowest end of the human group, the slaves, were surrounded by the vast realm of the brute life, constituent of that which was defined as being merely animated. The hierarchy within the human sphere could be secured by granting the lowest in the ranks of humanhood at least to be "more" than a mere brute, more than an animal. The human was considered to be political, in a either superior or inferior form, but still, top and bottom were integrated. Belonging to the human political contracts in tribes or civilizations, secured by the human group with the privilege of self-authorized meaning wich in turn had the capacity to bind the human group together, as humans. The highest in rank with the lowest all shared to be dominant over the animal world. The gap from the side of being a human to the realm of animals, had to be big enough in meaningfulness to ensure solidarity with the own, the human group. Still, taking sides with animals must have occured, since the individual's desire to get into a positive contact with animal life could never be totally ruled out with every human individual.

Where it is

Fascination with animals is visible not only there where it is evident and obvious, but it's also visible in some rudimental forms of relations, even so remotely as in one perverted way that can be traced up until today: the fascination with that to which animal life has been merely reduced to, that is the fascination with the mere fact of animatedness.

Nowadays in mainstream society the fasciation with that wich is animated seems to be dominant, in contrast with an "anti-opinion" or the negative fascination that is purported in relation towards real, nonhuman animals. The relation to real animals is one that has been turned into a perfection of negation on all possible levels. But the roots for that trace back a very long time.

One question is, if the fascination with animatedness has something to do with that what can be construed under the term of units-of-meaning? For example human life embodies certain values which form units-of-meaning. In the same way but with an entirely different set of contents, nonhuman animal life embodies values which also form units-of-meaning.

Animatedness is for example void of human meaning in itself, it only carries human meaning when it is a planned or unplanned result of a human action. But animatedness occurs not necessarily bound to human action and when it is bound to human action, the intetion is often to keep this bond indirect. Animatedness is there to have a "life of its own" in a way that must relate to how we construe units-of-meaning. The combination of the animated "life of its own" with the units-of-meaning it can bind together with, form a specific quality of fascination.

Why is it that mainstream society prefers anything they can consider to be something animated over the existence of "the other"?

Accomodated in an "animated habitat"!

Not only is there a failure to regard a plant as more than a living decoration, but also the machines that are constructed and bought -- as what regards the view of the natural as a habitat -- are designed in a way that they serve only to mirror much of a limited self, which seeks to avoid the knowledge about that what is entirely different; the other existences overall and natural correlations overall: beings, entities and their environments. Animals, Plants, and other natural forms of entities, all are subdued to the wants that stem from a concept, that limits itself by it's imagination of human omnipotency.

The view onto the outer as being an array of animated man-made-and-man-serving devices, seems to be less dangerous than acknowledging a heterogenous reality; on the epistemological level things can be kept on a slave-like position where they don't seem to confront the human with a direct moral issue regarding "the outer" (the environment) and "the other".

Also, the view onto that which can be easily viewed of as an animated device, neatly looks enough like you are dealing with that what makes up life: movement, multiple functions that interact with themselves, a start and an end, change. And the biggest fascination here lies in the knowledge that humans created a whole animated environment.

Visit:

The Vegan Society 

Also visit:
The American Anti-Vivisection Society

 

INDEX | Animals | Vegan Ethics | Insect-Individuals | Insects 2 | Fish Rights | Animals Languages | Guardianship | Lobster Rights |

Copyright © 2000-2006 Animals.
All rights reserved.