The Nature of Self

[AshvinP]

I wonder if you guys have taken a look at Barfield's essay on Philology and the Incarnation? Since it is in your area of expertise (SS), I am curious as to what you make of his argument. The following is an extract I took for Incarnating the Christ essay, but the full text is at the link.

Ok, read the exceprt. Barfield's linguistic argument that "change of direction" is a singular historical Event is not at all convincing. We breath (spirit) in and out in every breath. Our characters are introverted and extroverted in various mixtures - and not only human characters. Languages employ various grammatical means for intransitive and transitive movements. Finnish asubjective verbs can have both intransitive and transitive meanings and take an partitive or whole object - transitivity does not depend from or require construction of European subject-individual-disassociation, colonization into such.

"Change of direction" speaks of consecutive movements, consecutive states depending from and conditioned by bivalent idea. What is noteworthy is that textual - and in that sense historical - Christ speaks much of "making in and out same", especially in Gospel of Thomas, which by philological criteria is considered closest approaximation of the hypothesis of the Q-source.

Thinking about "in" and "out" as reified substances is not very helpful. Thinking them directions and processes begins to clarify what could be the cruxial meaning. Instead of only consecutive directions and movements and the bivalence of consecutive process, movements in and out can also be and become simultaneously both-and and/or neither-nor, as in Meister Eckhardts quote of "one eye". Directions remain, but without consecutive switching. Ceasing of consecutiveness and in-and-out movements integrating into synchronicities can be observed in spiritual experiences and scriptures world wide. Tetralemma can help to organize thinking, as bivalent LEM and LNC are denials of 'both-and' and 'neither-nor', and force bivalent consecutivity of in and out over synchronous bidirections. Tao, Jung, Whitehead's theology, etc. etc.

Subject-individual-disassociation, which Jordan Peterson discusses with good insight as top-to-bottom movement emanating from Pharaoh, is essentially a sociological phenomenon of mathematical administration for scaling up in size. Subject-individual-disassociation is divide-and-conquer into administrative units, and Peterson's ongoing inquiry is genuine and helpful in that respect, from his European and colonzied point of view. However sovereignity of living and breathing spirits in our material costumes does not emanate from Pharaoh, it is a fundamental given, which is in constant creative tension with all sorts of metabolical phenomena and our codependence. In the story of Temptation of Christ, he makes the choice of an Anarchist, the way of the Heart, instead of the choice of the Pharaoh, the way of domination. The mess that Roman Empire and Church made out of Christianity, another story.

I tried to follow, but not very well. Maybe upon more readings...

Although the bolded parts seem somewhat in line with Barfield's linguistic hypothesis. That is the "reversal" Barfield speaks of in terms of process (not substance) - reversal from outer-to-inner flow of thought to inner-to-outer. The Incarnation is when we see most clearly a harmonization of both flows existing within certain words like pneuma, not only in the meaning of those words but also in the spiritual meaning conveyed in Christ's teachings of "making in and out the same", as you point out. Pretty much all of this teachings center around that integral process of revealing the Oneness in various differentiated qualities. So let me ask a follow up - what do you make of the argument that this reversal of language meaning occurred in ancient Greek around that time? Do you see any such process occurring as Barfield describes?

[Robert Arvay]

Ashvin wrote:
If God were to "transcend" consciousness, as in phenomenal experience, then how could we ever experience His activity or know that He exists? Such a God may as well not exist for any of our intents and purposes. That, of course, is not the portrait of God we get from the Christian scripture.

The only way we can know that God exists is for Him to reveal Himself to us.
If He does not reveal Himself in the traditional sense, (that is through physical evidence),
then we require divine revelation.
This may occur through parallel channels, which I construe as prayer, scripture and fellowship (with other believers).

It has been said that, if we try to begin with bits of evidence and reason our way to God, then we will never get there.
If, however, we have accepted the divine gift of faith, then those bits of evidence become proofs, or at least as close
to it as our imperfect minds can get (clouded by sin).

The physical brain can never understand this.
-

[AshvinP]

Ashvin wrote:
If God were to "transcend" consciousness, as in phenomenal experience, then how could we ever experience His activity or know that He exists? Such a God may as well not exist for any of our intents and purposes. That, of course, is not the portrait of God we get from the Christian scripture.

The only way we can know that God exists is for Him to reveal Himself to us.
If He does not reveal Himself in the traditional sense, (that is through physical evidence),
then we require divine revelation.
This may occur through parallel channels, which I construe as prayer, scripture and fellowship (with other believers).

It has been said that, if we try to begin with bits of evidence and reason our way to God, then we will never get there.
If, however, we have accepted the divine gift of faith, then those bits of evidence become proofs, or at least as close
to it as our imperfect minds can get (clouded by sin).

The physical brain can never understand this.
-

If your "physical brain" could never understand the above, then you would not have been able to formulate and type it and convey real meaning through it. And if God can reveal himself through the physical world, or various "parallel channels" of our direct experience, then he does not "transcend" Consciousness. Maybe some aspect of Him transcends the experience we are always having but we can ever be aware that aspect in principle, but again we may as well then act as if that aspect does not exist because it can never be revealed to us and we can never Think our way to knowledge of it.

[SanteriSatama]

So let me ask a follow up - what do you make of the argument that this reversal of language meaning occurred in ancient Greek around that time? Do you see any such process occurring as Barfield describes?

What happened in ancient Greek etc. very manifestly is the transition from oral language to written language. The oral tradition of epic cycles is multilinear and multidirectional "cloud" which manifests as linear presentation only when a rhapsodos performs a unique performation in time and place, sings from the cloud.

When a cloudlike oral tradition becames fixed in writing, it becomes linear succession of written symbols and much more rigid, and not anymore dependent from organic performation.

In this respect, also good to keep in mind that Socrates and Jesus did not write anything themselves, they are oral clouds which we imagine through the filters of linear writing.

Imagining and experiencing multilinear clouds is becoming easier today, with the revolution of also written language into Living Logos through Internet and massively parallel computation in electromagnetic fields instead of carvings fixed by being attached to stone, papyrus and leather.

Medium is the message, as McLuhan said.

[AshvinP]

So let me ask a follow up - what do you make of the argument that this reversal of language meaning occurred in ancient Greek around that time? Do you see any such process occurring as Barfield describes?

What happened in ancient Greek etc. very manifestly is the transition from oral language to written language. The oral tradition of epic cycles is multilinear and multidirectional "cloud" which manifests as linear presentation only when a rhapsodos performs a unique performation in time and place, sings from the cloud.

When a cloudlike oral tradition becames fixed in writing, it becomes linear succession of written symbols and much more rigid, and not anymore dependent from organic performation.

In this respect, also good to keep in mind that Socrates and Jesus did not write anything themselves, they are oral clouds which we imagine through the filters of linear writing.

Imagining and experiencing multilinear clouds is becoming easier today, with the revolution of also written language into Living Logos through Internet and massively parallel computation in electromagnetic fields instead of carvings fixed by being attached to stone, papyrus and leather.

Medium is the message, as McLuhan said.

Clearly we have at least fragments of Greco-Roman writings from around that time, right? Or are you basically saying any sort of philological analysis at that time is ruled out because all the language meaning existed in non-written "cloud"? I do not rule out the "cloud" concept, because I do believe all meaning, for all intents and purposes, always exists, but is there any discernible pattern to the human "discovery" and changing application of language meanings over those times according to you?

[SanteriSatama]

Clearly we have at least fragments of Greco-Roman writings from around that time, right? Or are you basically saying any sort of philological analysis at that time is ruled out because all the language meaning existed in non-written "cloud"?

No, on the contrary. We get much better comprehension of the Greek textual corpus when we compare e.g. Homeric textual corpus with similar processes of transformations of oral traditions of Serbia, Finland etc. etc. to literary form. Serbia and Finland are well known examples of where the transformation from oral to written language is well documented. There is no doubt that the oral tradition is much richer than the literary form, which gradually replaces and kills a living oral tradition.

On the other hand, oral traditions with rich mythic and epic cycles keep also reappearing after introduction of writing, including Greek speaking world. Digenis Akritas is a litterary epos based on oral traditions in Byzantine empire.

I do not rule out the "cloud" concept, because I do believe all meaning, for all intents and purposes, always exists, but is there any discernible pattern to the human "discovery" and changing application of language meanings over those times according to you?

Of course there are, loads. Classical Greek and Modern Greek are very different. My favourite area of general linguistics is typology, which studies diachronic and synchronic linguistic variation, and tries to make generalizations of variation based on empirical study. From morphological and syntactic variation there's loads of challenges prodeeding to semantic - and spiritual - variation. Which I have approached from the perspective of translating poetry from Classical Greek to Finnish, also investigating and experimenting with animistic connections and deep structures within the source text and target text.

My criticism is mainly towards oversimplifications of immensly rich and complex field of study, and trying to fix and narrow it down to a certain frame of a religious or mythical interpretation. The idea of "myth of all myths" has the same... err... "ring"..., as the myth of "One Ring to rule them all". And the guy who wrote that myth was in the same circle as Barfield and C.S Lewis, and of the three had the deepest, most sensitive and poetic insight into linguistic and mythographic variation, including Finnish language and mythology.

[AshvinP]

Clearly we have at least fragments of Greco-Roman writings from around that time, right? Or are you basically saying any sort of philological analysis at that time is ruled out because all the language meaning existed in non-written "cloud"?

No, on the contrary. We get much better comprehension of the Greek textual corpus when we compare e.g. Homeric textual corpus with similar processes of transformations of oral traditions of Serbia, Finland etc. etc. to literary form. Serbia and Finland are well known examples of where the transformation from oral to written language is well documented. There is no doubt that the oral tradition is much richer than the literary form, which gradually replaces and kills a living oral tradition.

On the other hand, oral traditions with rich mythic and epic cycles keep also reappearing after introduction of writing, including Greek speaking world. Digenis Akritas is a litterary epos based on oral traditions in Byzantine empire.

I do not rule out the "cloud" concept, because I do believe all meaning, for all intents and purposes, always exists, but is there any discernible pattern to the human "discovery" and changing application of language meanings over those times according to you?

Of course there are, loads. Classical Greek and Modern Greek are very different. My favourite area of general linguistics is typology, which studies diachronic and synchronic linguistic variation, and tries to make generalizations of variation based on empirical study. From morphological and syntactic variation there's loads of challenges prodeeding to semantic - and spiritual - variation. Which I have approached from the perspective of translating poetry from Classical Greek to Finnish, also investigating and experimenting with animistic connections and deep structures within the source text and target text.

My criticism is mainly towards oversimplifications of immensly rich and complex field of study, and trying to fix and narrow it down to a certain frame of a religious or mythical interpretation. The idea of "myth of all myths" has the same... err... "ring"..., as the myth of "One Ring to rule them all". And the guy who wrote that myth was in the same circle as Barfield and C.S Lewis, and of the three had the deepest, most sensitive and poetic insight into linguistic and mythographic variation, including Finnish language and mythology.

OK so I think the question remains whether, regardless of how we feel about the idea of it taking place, such a major transition actually took place. Specifically we need to address the arguments made by Barfield in that essay. He is arguing for a specific reversal of meanings which starts the process of "replacing and killing" the living oral traditions (or even some prior written traditions). Perhaps your metaphysical notion of "time" itself rules out a "start" to anything in that manner, but I am just asking in terms of conventional historic timelines. Do you disagree with Barfield that there is sufficient philological evidence for this conclusion - "This was the moment at which there was consummated that age-long process of contraction of the immaterial qualities of the cosmos into a human center, into an inner world, which had made possible the development of an immaterial language."

re: Tolkien - the fact that he was a Christian and wrote that series with "one ring to rule them all", makes me think he did not identify the latter with emphasis on Christ incarnate as unique person or the events surrounding him as of unique importance. There is also this below:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Owen_Bar ... nd%20sound.

Barfield argued that language was more "poetic" in its more ancient forms noting that the same word described both a spiritual and physical reality for the ancient speakers, making no distinction. He noted, for example, that in some languages the word for "heaven" is the same as the word for "sky".[1]

Tolkien was very fond of Barfield's works and his linguistic views were most influenced by Barfield, specifically his concept of ancient and original unity between meaning and sound.

[SanteriSatama]

OK so I think the question remains whether, regardless of how we feel about the idea of it taking place, such a major transition actually took place. Specifically we need to address the arguments made by Barfield in that essay. He is arguing for a specific reversal of meanings which starts the process of "replacing and killing" the living oral traditions (or even some prior written traditions). Perhaps your metaphysical notion of "time" itself rules out a "start" to anything in that manner, but I am just asking in terms of conventional historic timelines. Do you disagree with Barfield that there is sufficient philological evidence for this conclusion - "This was the moment at which there was consummated that age-long process of contraction of the immaterial qualities of the cosmos into a human center, into an inner world, which had made possible the development of an immaterial language."

I don't consider my notion of time metaphysical, I consider it empirical. Physicalist time, especially in Einstein's debunked theories, is metaphysical and anti-empirical.

I'm afraid that on philological grounds I can't agree that there is sufficient evidence for the conclusion, as quoted. I don't doubt that a more careful reading of Barfield could not contribute to a nuanced discussion, if dogmatic positioning can be avoided.

[AshvinP]

OK so I think the question remains whether, regardless of how we feel about the idea of it taking place, such a major transition actually took place. Specifically we need to address the arguments made by Barfield in that essay. He is arguing for a specific reversal of meanings which starts the process of "replacing and killing" the living oral traditions (or even some prior written traditions). Perhaps your metaphysical notion of "time" itself rules out a "start" to anything in that manner, but I am just asking in terms of conventional historic timelines. Do you disagree with Barfield that there is sufficient philological evidence for this conclusion - "This was the moment at which there was consummated that age-long process of contraction of the immaterial qualities of the cosmos into a human center, into an inner world, which had made possible the development of an immaterial language."

I don't consider my notion of time metaphysical, I consider it empirical. Physicalist time, especially in Einstein's debunked theories, is metaphysical and anti-empirical.

I'm afraid that on philological grounds I can't agree that there is sufficient evidence for the conclusion, as quoted. I don't doubt that a more careful reading of Barfield could not contribute to a nuanced discussion, if dogmatic positioning can be avoided.

Dogmatic positioning works both ways. If one really dislikes the idea of Christ incarnate given any sort of "priority" over other spiritual leaders or traditions, then it may be that no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Significant chunks of Barfield's essay were left out of excerpt, so maybe that will help clarify his argument more. But your initial response sounded to me like you a priori reject any claim that a process of experiencing phenomenon could go in one direction or another at any given time. If that is the objection, then obviously nothing Barfield says will be convincing.

[SanteriSatama]

Dogmatic positioning works both ways. If one really dislikes the idea of Christ incarnate given any sort of "priority" over other spiritual leaders or traditions, then it may be that no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Significant chunks of Barfield's essay were left out of excerpt, so maybe that will help clarify his argument more. But your initial response sounded to me like you a priori reject any claim that a process of experiencing phenomenon could go in one direction or another at any given time. If that is the objection, then obviously nothing Barfield says will be convincing.

I don't dislike the idea of Christ incarnate, or object to some other incarnations giving Christ some sort of priority from their unique perspectives. What I object to is universalist monopoly claims - vestigia terrent, and we are here to learn from experience. Most vehemently monotheistic cults of our time are the salafist interpretations of Islam. "My Christ" vs "Your Muhammed" etc. etc. as competing monopoly claims to the Throne of One Ring... we know from experience what sorts of Game of Throne follow from such monopoly claims. By it's fruits a tree is known.

I'm not denying consecutive processes, for gossake, as I'm breathing consecutively in and out. What I tried to say is that spiritually, mathematically, computationally etc. I find synchronicity of simultaneous processes in-and-out, up-and-donw, even more fascinating form and phenomenon than consecutive and linear processes.

I now realize and think that coprimes - which are primes in relation to each other - are in this time, this metamorphosis in and of Spirit, more primary than ordinary prime numbers, which are not related to each other, but only to 'one'.

If we take metamorphic progress/process genuinely seriously, there's no need to stay stuck in Barfield and the old and receding idea of "One", as the atomistic unit of addition: "Procreate and fullfill the Earth! Add your number!", Done, dear lord, overabundandtly... done and over with. What next, then, what now, how do we found and ground this new time?

Partition, my frieds! Anointing each of us in all our relations into anointed coprimes. Second (or nteeth umpteeth whatever, as you like) coming as distributed and decentralzied theosis.