How the Mind Meets the Body

[AshvinP]

Barfield refers to Levy-Bruhl extensively in chapter 4 (Participation). But I certainly did not mean to imply that Barfield and Abram were saying the same thing (which does not mean there are no resonances at all). Abram is quite sympathetic to contemporary indigenous thinking and original participation, unlike Barfield, who applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism. As Barfield puts it in his concluding paragraphs:

"What will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation .... The other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all — paganism.”

The distaste for original participation for Barfield seems to stem from the "vagaries of confusion and savagery" in contemporary tribes which "remind us of the sins of commission in thought, feeling and action of which original participation is capable" (p. 57). For all his brilliance, this dislike for paganism and indigenous worldviews seem to be more a reflection of the sensibilities of a well-to-do mid 20th century English gentleman rather than being based on rigorous argument and anthropological/historical research. Of course, my impression could be countered by reading further on Barfield or Steiner, but books can also be judged as they stand on their own.

This is what I am trying to tell you. That last sentence only makes sense if there is no one around to inform you precisely what Barfield's background is and his overall approach to philosophy-spirituality. Unless you think I am making stuff up about Barfield's position, in which case I think it would still be prudent for you to confirm your suspicions before characterizing Barfield one way or another, since admittedly you just started reading him and have not considered his work more deeply. The implication of previous post was that "fans of Barfield" would also appreciate Abram position, and that is not at all accurate.

And you are once again misrepresenting Barfield completely, precisely because you fail to consider his approach and understanding as a Whole. You are fragmenting and isolating, which is the hallmark of left brain abstract intellect. Although this particular point should be evident from the concept of "the evolution of consciousness" itself. He is in no way "applauding scientism", but recognizing the natural unfolding of these new conscious modes from earlier ones. Original participation was not destined to last forever and it is indeed counter-productive for modern society to long for a return back to the mother's womb, so to speak (I discuss this a lot in last mythology essay in connection with Prometheus-Epimetheus and Genesis accounts in the Old Testament).

If you take the view that socioeconomic events determine or even take equal share in determining modes of consciousness, which I have seen you argue for previously, then you will continue to completely misunderstand Barfield's sentiments. It's not as if he fails to express similar if not even more critical sentiment with the rationalism and logical positivism of the modern age, because he does that at length too. All of these intellectual or over-mystical worldviews, if clinged onto by the abstract intellect, inhibit spiritual growth and therefore the realization of "final participation" (which is not used by him to indicate the absolute end of spiritual evolution or anything similar).

Speaking of misrepresentation, "applauding scientism" is not the same as "applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism". The latter is a reasonable gloss of "I do not believe it will be these things for which men will remember the scientific revolution with thankfulness...what will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation", wouldn't you agree?

In relation to the realization of final participation, in my view, changes in contemporary collective representations are more likely to occur as a result of change in the collective practices which constitute such representations, rather than through a retreat inwards into the imagination (as Barfield contends). Whilst the retreat inwards may give rise to pleasurable and ecstatic individual states of mind, I doubt that it has much effect on the evolution of consciousness except insofar as it motivates actions in the world.

No, I don't agree in the sense you are conveying it. Don't you see how your 2nd paragraph, which basically says Barfield has no idea what he is talking about re: the evolution of consciousness, makes the 1st paragraph have nothing to do with Barfield's view of "original" or "final" participation? He does not think "collective practices", by which you mean socioeconomic and political arrangements, had anything to do with the 'liquidation' of OP or the metamorphoses into scientific mode of consciousness. These things all followed as naturally in his view as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It did not at all depend on what "collective practices" the caterpillars adopted. Once we internalize his actual view, we realize how silly it is to read him as "applauding" these developments in isolation, like he is glad that a bunch of people got together and decided to do away with OP and mechanize the world with materialist science. That is simply an absurd reading of Barfield.

Does he applaud the holistic Wisdom of this overall metamorphic progression of the Spirit? Yes, of course - he was a Christian and Christians tend to think the incarnation of Christ in the world, i.e. the Spirit taking on flesh, was a positive development. Does he applaud the Hope that our current "dark night of the soul" in rationalism, scientism, etc. will give rise to our future spiritual freedom? Yes, of course. That is what is meant by "scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit". He does not think it's good because the spirit is gone forever, rather because it was only through that scouring of the appearances that the Spirit can really take root within the souls of individual humans, and grow from the bottom-up to meet itself from the top-down. Like Steiner, he envisions man becoming Spirit-Man in the millennia to come. So now that I have explained all of this to you (again), I sincerely hope you will stop misrepresenting Barfield.

[AshvinP]

This is what I am trying to tell you. That last sentence only makes sense if there is no one around to inform you precisely what Barfield's background is and his overall approach to philosophy-spirituality. Unless you think I am making stuff up about Barfield's position, in which case I think it would still be prudent for you to confirm your suspicions before characterizing Barfield one way or another, since admittedly you just started reading him and have not considered his work more deeply. The implication of previous post was that "fans of Barfield" would also appreciate Abram position, and that is not at all accurate.

And you are once again misrepresenting Barfield completely, precisely because you fail to consider his approach and understanding as a Whole. You are fragmenting and isolating, which is the hallmark of left brain abstract intellect. Although this particular point should be evident from the concept of "the evolution of consciousness" itself. He is in no way "applauding scientism", but recognizing the natural unfolding of these new conscious modes from earlier ones. Original participation was not destined to last forever and it is indeed counter-productive for modern society to long for a return back to the mother's womb, so to speak (I discuss this a lot in last mythology essay in connection with Prometheus-Epimetheus and Genesis accounts in the Old Testament).

If you take the view that socioeconomic events determine or even take equal share in determining modes of consciousness, which I have seen you argue for previously, then you will continue to completely misunderstand Barfield's sentiments. It's not as if he fails to express similar if not even more critical sentiment with the rationalism and logical positivism of the modern age, because he does that at length too. All of these intellectual or over-mystical worldviews, if clinged onto by the abstract intellect, inhibit spiritual growth and therefore the realization of "final participation" (which is not used by him to indicate the absolute end of spiritual evolution or anything similar).

Speaking of misrepresentation, "applauding scientism" is not the same as "applauded the liquidation of original participation by scientism". The latter is a reasonable gloss of "I do not believe it will be these things for which men will remember the scientific revolution with thankfulness...what will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation", wouldn't you agree?

In relation to the realization of final participation, in my view, changes in contemporary collective representations are more likely to occur as a result of change in the collective practices which constitute such representations, rather than through a retreat inwards into the imagination (as Barfield contends). Whilst the retreat inwards may give rise to pleasurable and ecstatic individual states of mind, I doubt that it has much effect on the evolution of consciousness except insofar as it motivates actions in the world.

No, I don't agree in the sense you are conveying it. Don't you see how your 2nd paragraph, which basically says Barfield has no idea what he is talking about re: the evolution of consciousness, makes the 1st paragraph have nothing to do with Barfield's view of "original" or "final" participation? He does not think "collective practices", by which you mean socioeconomic and political arrangements, had anything to do with the 'liquidation' of OP or the metamorphoses into scientific mode of consciousness. These things all followed as naturally in his view as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It did not at all depend on what "collective practices" the caterpillars adopted. Once we internalize his actual view, we realize how silly it is to read him as "applauding" these developments in isolation, like he is glad that a bunch of people got together and decided to do away with OP and mechanize the world with materialist science. That is simply an absurd reading of Barfield.

Does he applaud the holistic Wisdom of this overall metamorphic progression of the Spirit? Yes, of course - he was a Christian and Christians tend to think the incarnation of Christ in the world, i.e. the Spirit taking on flesh, was a positive development. Does he applaud the Hope that our current "dark night of the soul" in rationalism, scientism, etc. will give rise to our future spiritual freedom? Yes, of course. That is what is meant by "scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit". He does not think it's good because the spirit is gone forever, rather because it was only through that scouring of the appearances that the Spirit can really take root within the souls of individual humans, and grow from the bottom-up to meet itself from the top-down. Like Steiner, he envisions man becoming Spirit-Man in the millennia to come. So now that I have explained all of this to you (again), I sincerely hope you will stop misrepresenting Barfield.

Also, Cleric wrote a fantastic post about this metamorphic progression earlier today (relevant excerpt quoted):

So in the Fall man has to worry about food and clothing. He is pressed down by the environmental forces and he has to fight for his survival. Now we're getting back to the Kingdom. The Sun Spirit, the "I", has made its way into the dense decohered Earthly spectrum. Now it begins its work of bringing back the resonant harmonic relations of the Cosmic Organism. This is what everyone of us does individually through Thinking in which the "I" manifests. So far humans are busy hijacking this Thinking for the satisfaction of egoistic desires which perpetuates the out-of-phase relationships, keeps the stock market graph chaotic and makes everyone worry for the 'daily bread'.

The Gospel tells us that we can never fix things by focusing on the bread. As long as the decohering forces rule, the bread will always be uncertain. Instead, the Gospel invites us to first seek the Kingdom and its righteousness. What does this mean? It starts from the individual. Each person is an image of the Cosmic organism. As Thinking is recognized more and more as manifestation of the Cosmic Spirit within the sensory spectrum, it becomes more and more empowered, it becomes creative. Today it is entirely within reach of every human being to take their destiny in their own hands. By enlightening our Thinking, filling our hearts with Love and conducting through our Will only noble and righteous deeds, we begin to restore the coherence within our own being. This leads to actual healing

[JustinG]

I'm not misrepresenting Barfield at all. So readers can judge for themselves, here are the last few paragraphs of Saving the Appearances:

Barfield wrote:
This book is a study in idolatry, and especially that last and greatest step in idolatry which we call the scientific revolution. In it I have drawn attention to the great benefits which this revolution has brought about. I could have said much more of this. Races which throughout the history of the world have never had enough to eat are being fed, while I write, by the great technocracy of America. I have alluded also to the priceless gifts of accuracy and precision. Yet, when the last balance comes to be struck between good and evil, I do not believe it will be these things for which men will remember the scientific revolution with thankfulness.

Man, said J. P. Sartre, is a being who is condemned to freedom. That is one way oflooking at it. And it is the only ways if man himself is nothing but a hollow idoL But if man is not hollow, but is the theatre on which participation has died to rise again, then there is also another way of looking at it. If, in Christ, we participate finally the Spirit we once participated originally; if, in so doing, we participate one another—so that 'men' once more become also 'man'; if, in original participation, we were dreamers and unfree, and if Christ is a Being who can be participated only in vigilance and freedom, then what will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation. And if what it produced thereby was, as I have suggested, a world of idols, yet, as Augustine of old could contemplate the greatest of evils and exclaim Felix peccatum! so we, looking steadily on that world, and accepting the burden of existential responsibility which final participation lays on us, may yet be moved to add:

Felix eidolon!

'Peor and Baalim Forsake their temples dim . .' the other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all—paganism.

So, Barfield is saying that the most thankful thing about the scientific revolution, more thankful even than the hungry being fed, is the scouring of the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit and freeing us from original participation. Clearly this implies that remaining cultures who still partake of original participation, such as indigenous cultures, are to be "freed" from it. Characterizing this as no more than "recognizing the natural unfolding of new conscious modes from earlier ones" in the evolution of consciousness is no different to Stalinist and economistic Marxists characterizing the elimination of traditional cultures as the natural unfolding of the evolution of humanity towards communism.

Thus, whilst I am not misrepresenting Barfield, I am certainly disagreeing with him. Appreciating great thinkers from the past does not mean they should not be read in view of the sociohistorical context of their times, and Barfield was clearly impacted by the colonialist and imperialist worldview of his day.

As for the scouring of the Earth of original participation having anything to do with the true message of Christianity, I can do no more than refer to Luke:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that
are bruised.

[AshvinP]

I'm not misrepresenting Barfield at all. So readers can judge for themselves, here are the last few paragraphs of Saving the Appearances:

Barfield wrote:
This book is a study in idolatry, and especially that last and greatest step in idolatry which we call the scientific revolution. In it I have drawn attention to the great benefits which this revolution has brought about. I could have said much more of this. Races which throughout the history of the world have never had enough to eat are being fed, while I write, by the great technocracy of America. I have alluded also to the priceless gifts of accuracy and precision. Yet, when the last balance comes to be struck between good and evil, I do not believe it will be these things for which men will remember the scientific revolution with thankfulness.

Man, said J. P. Sartre, is a being who is condemned to freedom. That is one way oflooking at it. And it is the only ways if man himself is nothing but a hollow idoL But if man is not hollow, but is the theatre on which participation has died to rise again, then there is also another way of looking at it. If, in Christ, we participate finally the Spirit we once participated originally; if, in so doing, we participate one another—so that 'men' once more become also 'man'; if, in original participation, we were dreamers and unfree, and if Christ is a Being who can be participated only in vigilance and freedom, then what will chiefly be remembered about the scientific revolution will be the way in which it scoured the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit, freeing us from original, and for final, participation. And if what it produced thereby was, as I have suggested, a world of idols, yet, as Augustine of old could contemplate the greatest of evils and exclaim Felix peccatum! so we, looking steadily on that world, and accepting the burden of existential responsibility which final participation lays on us, may yet be moved to add:

Felix eidolon!

'Peor and Baalim Forsake their temples dim . .' the other name for original participation, in all its long-hidden, in all its diluted forms, in science, in art and in religion, is, after all—paganism.

So, Barfield is saying that the most thankful thing about the scientific revolution, more thankful even than the hungry being fed, is the scouring of the appearances clean of the last traces of spirit and freeing us from original participation. Clearly this implies that remaining cultures who still partake of original participation, such as indigenous cultures, are to be "freed" from it. Characterizing this as no more than "recognizing the natural unfolding of new conscious modes from earlier ones" in the evolution of consciousness is no different to Stalinist and economistic Marxists characterizing the elimination of traditional cultures as the natural unfolding of the evolution of humanity towards communism.

Thus, whilst I am not misrepresenting Barfield, I am certainly disagreeing with him. Appreciating great thinkers from the past does not mean they should not be read in view of the sociohistorical context of their times, and Barfield was clearly impacted by the colonialist and imperialist worldview of his day.

As for the scouring of the Earth of original participation having anything to do with the true message of Christianity, I can do no more than refer to Luke:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that
are bruised.

Yes, Justin... is it so hard to understand Barfield believes in a spiritual reality? Just because you do not believe in that Reality, and think materialism and left-brain abstract intellect should govern how we think, feel, and act for all eternity (or until the Sun burns out and destroys all life in the Universe), does not retroactively change Barfield's life work. His position is not so different than Hegel's phenomenology of the Spirit, and yes Marx proudly remarked that he "flipped Hegel on his head". That is a tragic fact of the modern age - the greatest and most alluring deceptions come simply by relatively lazy people inverting the most sublime truths. You are seeking the answer to all world problems in the crass material world, exactly where scientism seeks it, while Barfield says we must stop banging our heads against the brick wall and try something different, i.e. seek first in the spiritual realms by way of inner Self-knowledge - "seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness". That is Wisdom we also find in the ancient cultures which held to the maxim, "Know thyself", and were much closer to original participation than you imagine yourself to be. Barfield does not take the Biblical Wisdom as metaphors for self-righteous, virtue-signaling works of charity, but as deep and profound spiritual truths which each individual can discover within their own experience, thereby enabling them to truly heal the sick and raise up the poor, helping their fellow human souls, rather than just pretending to by throwing money and empty political promises at the problems, or writing books about "becoming animal" to turn a profit, at the expense of the indigenous cultures which will remain exactly where Abram found them as he lives a life of luxury. It is the most egocentric and naïve Westerner who thinks people want to remain living in violent tribal clans forever.

Needless to say, you are still grossly misrepresenting Barfield, as you triple and quadruple down on your mistakes, illustrating vividly Barfield's sentiment:

"Yet it is the enemy of life, for repetition is itself the principle, not of life but of mechanism.”

[JustinG]

His position is not so different than Hegel's phenomenology of the Spirit, and yes Marx proudly remarked that he "flipped Hegel on his head". That is a tragic fact of the modern age - the greatest and most alluring deceptions come simply by relatively lazy people inverting the most sublime truths.

If you had read anything about Marxism beyond Jordan Peterson you would know that the flipping of Hegel had nothing to do with metaphysical materialism and was about the relation between social practices and beliefs about such practices.

In case you have any inclination towards stopping your regular misrepresentations of Marx, a good place to start would be with his Theses on Feuerbach: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... heses.htm .

Needless to say, you are still grossly misrepresenting Barfield...

As I said, people are best off to read Barfield for themselves and make up their own minds. But given your considerable knowledge of him, I do have a question for you:

Given that final participation entails the scouring of original participation, what do you think the policies of a hypothetical Barfieldian policy maker regarding contemporary indigenous cultures would look like? Should these cultures be fostered or hastened on their way?

[Lou Gold]

As I said, people are best off to read Barfield for themselves and make up their own minds. But given your considerable knowledge of him, I do have a question for you:

Given that final participation entails the scouring of original participation, what do you think the policies of a hypothetical Barfieldian policy maker regarding contemporary indigenous cultures would look like? Should these cultures be fostered or hastened on their way?

Perhaps there is a third "middle way" alternative of both indigenous and European cultures evolving in modern ways? Perhaps some of the modern ways will be syncretic rather than exclusive. Perhaps the beginning and end, the original and the final, are continuously evolving processes?

[AshvinP]

His position is not so different than Hegel's phenomenology of the Spirit, and yes Marx proudly remarked that he "flipped Hegel on his head". That is a tragic fact of the modern age - the greatest and most alluring deceptions come simply by relatively lazy people inverting the most sublime truths.

If you had read anything about Marxism beyond Jordan Peterson you would know that the flipping of Hegel had nothing to do with metaphysical materialism and was about the relation between social practices and beliefs about such practices.

So now Marx did not develop historical dialectical materialism, which takes Hegels spiritual evolution and flips it to socioeconomic arrangments to explain all of human history? Looks like you need to back to the basics on Marx as well.

Needless to say, you are still grossly misrepresenting Barfield...

As I said, people are best off to read Barfield for themselves and make up their own minds. But given your considerable knowledge of him, I do have a question for you:

Given that final participation entails the scouring of original participation, what do you think the policies of a hypothetical Barfieldian policy maker regarding contemporary indigenous cultures would look like? Should these cultures be fostered or hastened on their way?

It is really concerning that you cannot even imagine a world where individuals work on transforming themselves in freedom before enacting political policies to coerce people one way or another on Earth. This reflects a rapidly accelerating trend in Western culture at large. That rigid mechanical thinking which lacks imagination can only lead to disastrous consequences, as it transforms the world to resemble itself, recreating it in its own lifeless image.

OP has already been scoured, whether you like it or not. Even indigenous cultures are but pale shadows of what they used to be in that regard. There are greater spiritual forces at work than your own personal ego, with its likes and dislikes. We can either choose to acknowledge the Reality we are living in or do nothing and continue living in a world of pure lifeless abstraction, blaming capitalism, religion, atheism, materialism, or other "evildoers" for all our own shortcomings.

Barfield chose the former and we should follow his example.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Here we go again, with an all too familiar pattern ... Someone interprets Barfield through a conditioned mindset predisposed toward one view, and someone else interprets Barfield through a quite different conditioned mindset, predisposed to a quite different view (let's face it, we all do this), then the accusations begin about misrepresentations, when of course each representation seems accurate according to the predisposed mindset. Isn't the integral, aperspectival view supposed to transcend this thinking trap?

[AshvinP]

Here we go again, with an all too familiar pattern ... Someone interprets Barfield through a conditioned mindset predisposed toward one view, and someone else interprets Barfield through a quite different conditioned mindset, predisposed to a quite different view (let's face it, we all do this), then the accusations begin about misrepresentations, when of course each representation seems accurate according to the predisposed mindset. Isn't the integral, aperspectival view supposed to transcend this thinking trap?

No, Dana, we are definitely not supposed to transcend objective meaning. That is the foundation of objective idealism as well. Saying thinkers and their ideas can exist in a world of complete relative interpretation is another way of abdicating responsibility for actually contemplating what they are communicating to us. It is especially ironic in Barfield case, because he sets out to show (very successfully IMO) how we literally co-create the phenomenal word via Imagination and language is an integral aspect of that whole process. I don't have to be a Barfield scholar to know Justin is blatantly misrepresenting him and, furthermore, refuses to acknowledge it, but rather chooses to selectively quote him to further misrepresent. That cannot be anything other than intentional. He started out using Barfield as some sort of endorsement for neo-animism and now is just slandering his character. He said Barfield applauds liquidation of OP for scientism and on another thread he called Barfield a dualist. If this were occurring with BK and his work, maybe arguing he advocates for materialism and also somehow wants to purge the world of all materialists, it would not be a matter of mutual "predispositions" for you.

[JustinG]

Ashvin, chill out brother. This forum is not really that important.