Following from ideas presented in Rethinking the animate, reanimating thought, I started to think about the cultural barriers constructed within my own cognitive wiring, and how and when they were built. The fact that through ethnography, we know that ‘people do not always agree about what is alive and what is not, and that even when they do agree it might be for entirely different reasons’ demonstrates how different culture constitute ‘life’, making all their judgements either equally unimportant or relevant.

However, what prevails in each culture’s culture is the childhood agency of innocence, that seems to give no trouble presenting life to animate objects. Playing with anthropomorphic toys, or even stones and rocks, the expansive nature of a child’s mind consequent to the possibility of their imagination seems to deem all ‘things’ relevant and special. Hell they even create ‘imaginary’ friends, which in essence gives the ‘power of life’ to an object which voids being in ‘life’ itself. This animalism or acceptance is a commonly shared trait between all children, which ultimately begins to become framed and divided as they grow up into the hierarchy of discrimination deemed by adults.

The article argues that ‘by way of inversions, beings originally open to the world are closed in upon themselves, sealed by an outer boundary or shell that protects their inner constitution from the traffic of interaction and surroundings’. To me, this sounds very similar to the process of innocence to experience, presented to all beings in process of gaining ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ about the society they live within.

Thus, I am perhaps suggesting we listen to the children, or perhaps take ourselves less seriously and start acting more innocent. And maybe if I do, I’ll be able to seek the answers of this subject easier then I would have it I was expecting to find a logical truth, which ironically is something that this studio seems to be voided of – scientific logic.