Bernardo's latest essay

[SanteriSatama]

I'm sorry if I have offended someone with the word 'savage'. I accept proposals for politically correct term that refers to a human being at instinctive stage of development.

I propose Jung and Gebser term of "archaic man".

Why do you keep on insisting on badly outdated Eurocentric language with strong exclusionary flavor and subtext?

The myth of unilinear historical progression (with "Noble savage" etc) goes back IIRC to Voltaire, and in no way corresponds with contemporary anthropological data and comprehension. *

If we are sincere about integration and spiritual evolution, we can't stay on the little island of old Eurocentric mythology and claim it to be the whole wide world. The "East vs. West" axis of discussion is a polarity that still stays mostly inside the internal dialogue of Indo-European languages. There are also other directions, South, West, all the winds between the four winds; in and out; up and down, all the shades and qualities of middle; human spirits and other animal and nature spirits, etc. etc. We can't evolve and integrate by declaring a disassociative cultural boundary, sticking with that and building that into our prison wall. Does this sound unreasonable to you?

*

[Lou Gold]

I'm sorry if I have offended someone with the word 'savage'. I accept proposals for politically correct term that refers to a human being at instinctive stage of development.

I propose Jung and Gebser term of "archaic man".

What about "first people" or "first persons" leaving open the question of whether subsequent adaptive evolution weighed largely positive, largely negative or simply as a mix of costs and benefits playing out in different contexts?

[AshvinP]

I'm sorry if I have offended someone with the word 'savage'. I accept proposals for politically correct term that refers to a human being at instinctive stage of development.

I propose Jung and Gebser term of "archaic man".

Why do you keep on insisting on badly outdated Eurocentric language with strong exclusionary flavor and subtext?

The myth of unilinear historical progression (with "Noble savage" etc) goes back IIRC to Voltaire, and in no way corresponds with contemporary anthropological data and comprehension. *

If we are sincere about integration and spiritual evolution, we can't stay on the little island of old Eurocentric mythology and claim it to be the whole wide world. The "East vs. West" axis of discussion is a polarity that still stays mostly inside the internal dialogue of Indo-European languages. There are also other directions, South, West, all the winds between the four winds; in and out; up and down, all the shades and qualities of middle; human spirits and other animal and nature spirits, etc. etc. We can't evolve and integrate by declaring a disassociative cultural boundary, sticking with that and building that into our prison wall. Does this sound unreasonable to you?

What about "first people" or "first persons" leaving open the question of whether subsequent adaptive evolution weighed largely positive, largely negative or simply as a mix of costs and benefits playing out in different contexts?

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis. Any comment trying to divert away from that meaning towards discussing various "prejudices" I view as totally irrelevant and unproductive.

[SanteriSatama]

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis. Any comment trying to divert away from that meaning towards discussing various "prejudices" I view as totally irrelevant and unproductive.

The key problem is that the outdated eurocentric terminology makes an awful mess of the meaning as well as upholds a counter-empirical and antiscientific narrative. Also in the aspect of the myth of unilinear and universal time, which QM evolving into CPT-symmetry has falsified.

To begin with, does "actual mode of instinctive consciousness" mean a) purely mechanized response instincts b) highly integrated and intuitive instincts?

Second, do you believe that highly integrated and intuitive instincts are exclusive of the metacognitive layer of experiencing? That it's by necessity an either-or situation locally and temporally?

[AshvinP]

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis. Any comment trying to divert away from that meaning towards discussing various "prejudices" I view as totally irrelevant and unproductive.

The key problem is that the outdated eurocentric terminology makes an awful mess of the meaning as well as upholds a counter-empirical and antiscientific narrative. Also in the aspect of the myth of unilinear and universal time, which QM evolving into CPT-symmetry has falsified.

To begin with, does "actual mode of instinctive consciousness" mean a) purely mechanized response instincts b) highly integrated and intuitive instincts?

Second, do you believe that highly integrated and intuitive instincts are exclusive of the metacognitive layer of experiencing? That it's by necessity an either-or situation locally and temporally?

Those are good questions and ones Cleric can respond to much better and with more detail. My preliminary remark is that we are talking of consciousness highly integrated with Nature (to the point where there is no sense of "I"), but definitely not metacognitive for that same reason. There is no abstract symbolic thinking involved; no taking information and reflecting on it to form systematic representational networks as we do. But then there is also no intuitive consciousness in the sense of a distinct ego-self which intuits its relationship to the whole.

[Lou Gold]

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis.

I'm curious as to whether or not the narrative called "metamorphic progression" is an assumed ascent/progress or if it is held open to the possibility of being a catastrophic fall/error?

[AshvinP]

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis.

I'm curious as to whether or not the narrative called "metamorphic progression" is an assumed ascent/progress or if it is held open to the possibility of being a catastrophic fall/error?

It is simply what happened and what is happening. Symbolically it is represented as both catastrophic Fall and re-ascension to the Divine.

[SanteriSatama]

Those are good questions and ones Cleric can respond to much better and with more detail. My preliminary remark is that we are talking of consciousness highly integrated with Nature

Let's stop right here. What does "Nature" mean??? As it's European language speaking, with the Latin etymology (Latin natura has root meaning of 'birth') word chosen this time, I suppose "Nature" refers here to the object of physicalism, given birth by post-Cartesian scientism. The other aspect of the nature-object of the European Subject, besides object of material extraction, is the romantic object-desire of urban way of life, from the perspective of it's highly desensitized and mechanized sensual sphere. Corresponding Greek word fysis comes from core meaning of 'growth'. Note that Germanic languages English, German etc. don't have corresponding domestic word, but use the colonizing Greco-Latin concept.

So, this meaning of "Nature" is here already potentially very misguiding projection to some kind of objectified - instead of actually experienced - idea. If by "ancestors" you mean your Germanic language speaking ancestors before their colonization by the Roman Empire etc., how could they be integrated with something you don't have a word for, cant conceptualize, but still claim to have some expert knowledge that comes from reading theoretical work of Barfield and co, not so much from direct empirical experience?

If I may, I could offer a complementary perspective from the animistic-shamanic layers of Finnish language, based on empirical evidence of "actual" - or as we would say true - experience. Finnish 'luonto', which translates as fysis-natura in the colonized layer of language, comes from the root meaning 'to create'. The true/actual meaning is a distinct sensual quality in the general category of spirits. The sensual quality has a close relation with sexual/reproductive energy, or simply put: power of creation.

The power of creation is, or at least can be, also highly consciouss in the metacognitive and linguistic aspect of thinking and being. Incantations begin with vocal raising of Luonto, to integrate with power of creation, and in the integrating sentience also words and trusts of Births can be sung and spoken. Tolkien's cosmogony of 'Great Song of Ainur' is a poetic insight to the core meaning of Luonto, embedded in a linear narrative of time. Of course empirically and structurally Birth-Fysis are sung and sensed and willed into multilinear true time, which is perhaps the most sensible meaning of the Greek word dynamis.

In the Western jargon, the sentient and instinctive integration with Luonto corresponds with form-idea of dynamic holography, ie. process philosophical version of Indra's Net. Which alone is just a theoretical image, not the true instinct of sophrosyne. Which can be read etymologically: Being with integrated guts.

(to the point where there is no sense of "I"), but definitely not metacognitive for that same reason. There is no abstract symbolic thinking involved; no taking information and reflecting on it to form systematic representational networks as we do. But then there is also no intuitive consciousness in the sense of a distinct ego-self which intuits its relationship to the whole.

So, this does not correspond at all with the empirical perspective I just presented. The "I" is very much present in the 1st person speech act as well as in the sentient quality of dynamically integrated part-whole relation.

You don't lose your self, your uniqueness, your participation in speech acts with various degrees of metacognition by liberating from the disasssociation-defence mechanism and construct called by Greco-Latin terms "ego-subject" and "individual". You gain.

[JustinG]

To me it does not matter what term is used as long as people remember the meaning of what is being referred to - an actual mode of instinctive consciousness that our ancestors experienced and was qualitatively different from more recent modes. That is the inevitable conclusion of the metamorphic progression that we also experience in our own lifetimes and even on a daily basis.

I'm curious as to whether or not the narrative called "metamorphic progression" is an assumed ascent/progress or if it is held open to the possibility of being a catastrophic fall/error?

An insightful book I recently read that is relevant to this issue is Songlines: The Power and Promise (https://www.amazon.com.au/Songlines-Pow ... 1760761184) It's co-written by an Indigenous Australian and a physicalist skeptic, who has nevertheless come to greatly appreciate indigenous memory practices and mnemonic techniques (which have similarities to those used in Ancient Greece and in the Renaissance).

Perhaps metamorphic "return" or "rebirth" may be a more appropriate, less imperialist-sounding term than "progression". Of course, return or rebirth does not entail abandoning science, logic and reason or agreeing with all indigenous practices.

[AshvinP]

Those are good questions and ones Cleric can respond to much better and with more detail. My preliminary remark is that we are talking of consciousness highly integrated with Nature

Let's stop right here. What does "Nature" mean??? As it's European language speaking, with the Latin etymology (Latin natura has root meaning of 'birth') word chosen this time, I suppose "Nature" refers here to the object of physicalism, given birth by post-Cartesian scientism. The other aspect of the nature-object of the European Subject, besides object of material extraction, is the romantic object-desire of urban way of life, from the perspective of it's highly desensitized and mechanized sensual sphere. Corresponding Greek word fysis comes from core meaning of 'growth'. Note that Germanic languages English, German etc. don't have corresponding domestic word, but use the colonizing Greco-Latin concept.

So, this meaning of "Nature" is here already potentially very misguiding projection to some kind of objectified - instead of actually experienced - idea. If by "ancestors" you mean your Germanic language speaking ancestors before their colonization by the Roman Empire etc., how could they be integrated with something you don't have a word for, cant conceptualize, but still claim to have some expert knowledge that comes from reading theoretical work of Barfield and co, not so much from direct empirical experience?

Nature means everything non-human and non-cultural. We have direct experience of this mode with infancy (before "object permanence") and deep sleep. And if we hold to reincarnation, which I do, then we also have experience of past lives. Although it is very difficult for modern humans to remember the quality of such experiences, it is by no means impossible (unless one holds to non-metamorphic idealism or physicalism and therefore never finds any reason to remember them).

If I may, I could offer a complementary perspective from the animistic-shamanic layers of Finnish language, based on empirical evidence of "actual" - or as we would say true - experience. Finnish 'luonto', which translates as fysis-natura in the colonized layer of language, comes from the root meaning 'to create'. The true/actual meaning is a distinct sensual quality in the general category of spirits. The sensual quality has a close relation with sexual/reproductive energy, or simply put: power of creation.

The power of creation is, or at least can be, also highly consciouss in the metacognitive and linguistic aspect of thinking and being. Incantations begin with vocal raising of Luonto, to integrate with power of creation, and in the integrating sentience also words and trusts of Births can be sung and spoken. Tolkien's cosmogony of 'Great Song of Ainur' is a poetic insight to the core meaning of Luonto, embedded in a linear narrative of time. Of course empirically and structurally Birth-Fysis are sung and sensed and willed into multilinear true time, which is perhaps the most sensible meaning of the Greek word dynamis.

In the Western jargon, the sentient and instinctive integration with Luonto corresponds with form-idea of dynamic holography, ie. process philosophical version of Indra's Net. Which alone is just a theoretical image, not the true instinct of sophrosyne. Which can be read etymologically: Being with integrated guts.

I find it very odd you refer to "actual experience" and then proceed to use the most abstract and language-dependent concepts which can possibly be employed, almost guaranteeing they are not comprehensible without a solid 10-50x re-readings. Look at Cleric's equally detailed descriptions of these "actual experiences" to see the difference. Not that you need to write like he does, but let's not kid ourselves that your approach is more "empirical". I know that my conceptual approach also suffers from many similar shortcomings and, although I want to overcome those eventually, I know perfectly well that currently I have not and I see the need to overcome that.

(to the point where there is no sense of "I"), but definitely not metacognitive for that same reason. There is no abstract symbolic thinking involved; no taking information and reflecting on it to form systematic representational networks as we do. But then there is also no intuitive consciousness in the sense of a distinct ego-self which intuits its relationship to the whole.

So, this does not correspond at all with the empirical perspective I just presented. The "I" is very much present in the 1st person speech act as well as in the sentient quality of dynamically integrated part-whole relation.

You don't lose your self, your uniqueness, your participation in speech acts with various degrees of metacognition by liberating from the disasssociation-defence mechanism and construct called by Greco-Latin terms "ego-subject" and "individual". You gain.

Yes so I think your view is at odds with what Cleric was describing re: "savage" or "archaic" or whatever man. Does your approach also conclude the "I" is very much present with first few weeks of infancy?