Owen Barfield wrote a history of Western culture by doing nothing apart from following the origins and transformations of English words. In this endeavor, Barfield approached history in a very unique way. He perceived how the presence, absence, and use of various words, in relation to that of other words, could provide clear knowledge of Western civilization to someone otherwise ignorant of it. Not only that, but it could provide us a more objectively valid, living, and qualitative knowledge of this evolving history than all of the prosaic accounts taught by professors to students in universities. Barfield remarked, "It has only just begun to dawn on us that in our own language alone, not to speak of its many companions, the past history of humanity is spread out in an imperishable map, just as the history of the mineral earth lies embedded in the layers of its outer crust. But there is this difference between the record of the rocks and the secrets which are hidden in language: whereas the former can only give us a knowledge of outward, dead things—such as forgotten seas and the bodily shapes of prehistoric animals and primitive men—language has preserved for us the inner, living history of man's soul. It reveals the evolution of consciousness."
It is true that language provides an imperishable map of inner experience, but that is even more true of the sensible perceptions in the world which all language is drawn from. Barfield, and one of his favorite poets, Ralph Waldo Emerson, pointed attention often to the fact that all language we currently use to symbolize inner mental states and dispositions began as words reflecting the perceptible appearances of the world. Emerson observed, "Right originally means straight; wrong means twisted. Spirit primarily means wind; transgression, the crossing of a line; supercilious, the raising of the eye-brow." This ideal quality of physical images has not disappeared, but has only been veiled by our own abstract and limited cognition. One major obstacle to examining the transformations of perceptions, as opposed to words, is that most people cannot access perceptions beyond a very limited range of their recent memory. There is another approach, however, which can still yield fruit. We can start with our current perceptual experiences and see what those disclose to us about the phenomena in question, which, in this case, is the mechanisms of modern human culture and daily life. To begin with what presents itself to our experience most immediately is the genuinely phenomenological approach.
The willing of repetitive experience is also what we call Thinking and Memory. That is why Barfield places it at the very foundation of so many qualities which make us uniquely human. How can such qualities, which ground our speech, our reasoning intellect, our art, and our morality, then transform into "the enemy of life"? A famous philosopher once said, "evil is truth which is out of season". Many riddles surrounding the current state of humanity in the modern age can be understood through the lens of this simple Wisdom. Specifically, for our purposes here, the enemy of life arrives when this unique human quality of repetitive experiencing, which underlies all technological development in the modern age, is clinged to for the conveniences and comforts it provides long past their 'expiration date'. This stubborn refusal to evolve with the currents of cognition - this deeply ingrained desire to constantly swim upstream against them - then compounds itself into something which carries much more tragic consequences for humanity as a whole, the longer it is ignored and festers within us. We will see how those consequences have already unfolded in modern society and are still unfolding around us in due course. First, Barfield takes us back to the Reinassance era, when many of the predecessors to our current English vocabulary were reintroduced into the streams of Western thought.
Barfield wrote:The new intercourse with the ancient literatures of Greece and Rome naturally brought into English a positive stream of ‘literary borrowings’. At first these were mostly Latin words. If we try to imagine an English from which such words as accommodate, capable, capacious, compute, corroborate, distinguish, efficacy, estimate, experiment, insinuate, investigate, and a host of others equally common are as yet absent, we may partly realize what an important part was played by the Renaissance in producing the language in which we speak and think.
At this very early stage, there was still a feeling for the concrete experiences to which these words referred. At the end of the 17th century, a "computer" was still a human being "who calculates... whose occupation is to make arithmetical calculations". By the end of the 19th century, we first get its usage as a "calculating machine" with its own existence independent of any particular human being. It is only in 1937, through the personality of Alan Turing, that the word is first used in its modern sense of "programmable digital electronic device for performing mathematical or logical operations". One should clearly sense the distancing that is occurring here from the human body-brain and its living cognitive processes. The philosophical meaning of "abstract" as a verb from the mid-16th century is, "to draw away, withdraw, remove". Let us be clear - for human thinking to draw away from nature and its processes was absolutely necessary for any modern technology to develop, such as that which I am taking advantage of now. We only fool ourselves if we imagine that we could have done without the Wisdom of this process. Yet our clear thinking should remain equally clear as we explore, in precise and concrete terms, what qualities of living experience we have also forsaken in this abstracting process of the modern mechanical age.
Mechanical technology itself is not unique to the modern age. What is unique is how this technology has influenced every dimension of our cultural existence, right down to the way we perceive and think about the world around us. It is not only our ideas about the world which have taken on a mechanical nature, but our method of forming ideas has been mechanized. That is what Barfield refers to above as "consciousness"; the generally subconscious way in which we perceive and cognize the World Content. Our considerations here will be supplemented by some of Barfield's findings along the way, but we will focus mostly on the digital age of technology which has only come into widespread use over the last few decades after Barfield's passing. Since the dawn of the 21st century, this technology has come to govern every sphere of our lives from our mornings to our evenings, our weekdays to our weekends, and our youth to our adulthood. It dictates our decisions in our homes and offices, in our cities and countrysides, and in our social, civic, personal, and professional lives. Based on his writings and the spirit of his thought more generally, it is a safe bet that Barfield would be very concerned with the accelerating pace of this development.
Many modern psychology books, articles, YouTube channels, and podcasts have tried to explore the harmful effects of digital technology. These analyses of the situtation paint with very broad strokes, thereby remaining hoplessly abstract and mostly unhelpful. The mechanization phenomena is treated as one more in a long list of bad habits, like smoking or eating fast food. It is referred to as yet another activity that people in the modern world should either avoid altogether or use in moderation to whatever extent possible. These approaches cannot possibly be helpful because they fail to diagnose the problem we are dealing with in its living essence. The task of any genuine "phenomenology" is to observe and deeply contemplate how these underlying living dynamics of the phenomena manifest in our immanent experience. We start with the phenomenal appearances - in this case, various aspects of digital technology - but we don't arbitarily end with the mere appearances if we can go further and deeper through sound logical reasoning. It is by penetrating into the depths of phenomena that we begin to actually hear their tales and tunes, otherwise muted, at first only by faint whispers, but later through resounding words, images, and tones.
One aspect of the phenomena at issue here is patently obvious from the outset - digital technology acts a synthetic substitute for natural perceptual and cognitive processes; These processes should be understood in their deepest sense - ones which allow us to relate to the World Content in every waking and dreaming moment of our lives, and to make sense of the manifold phenomena which confront us. To perceive what happens when these processes are substituted out by digital media technology, we first need a basic understanding of what these processes do for us. We will approach this topic by way of a few phenomenological and aesthetic considerations. First, let us examine why it is that we perceive anything in the world around us. What functions are the "perceptions" in the phenomenal world actually serving in our experience? To stimulate our Imagination here, and to give readers an opportunity to discern some clues to this 'mystery' of perception, I am going to quote a few modern thinkers over a range of time who spoke directly to this function of perceptual phenomena that we are searching for. No matter how abstract the language becomes, remember that these thinkers below were speaking of our immanent phenomenal experience.
Light and colours, heat and cold, extension and figures—in a word the things we see and feel — what are they but so many sensations, notions, ideas, or impressions on the sense? and is it possible to separate, even in thought, any of these from perception?... my conceiving or imagining power does not extend beyond the possibility of real existence or perception... as it is impossible for me to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thoughts any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it.
- George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710)
Only within a one is [a perception] a property; and only in relation to other properties is it specific... isolated property is basically just a form of sensuous being since it... is now reduced to mere meaning, having, in other words, altogether ceased perceiving and involuted into itself... But sensuous being and meaning mutate into perception.
- Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807)
You must, when contemplating nature,
Attend to this, in each and every feature:
There’s nought outside and nought within,
For she is inside out and outside in.
Thus will you grasp, with no delay,
The holy secret, clear as day.
- Goethe, Epirrhema (1819)
The ruin or the blank, that we see when we look at nature, is in our own eye. The axis of vision is not coincident with the axis of things, and so they appear not transparent but opaque. The reason why the world lacks unity, and lies broken and in heaps, is, because man is disunited with himself. He cannot be a naturalist, until he satisfies all the demands of the spirit. Love is as much its demand, as perception. Indeed, neither can be perfect without the other. In the uttermost meaning of the words, thought is devout, and devotion is thought. Deep calls unto deep.
- Emerson, Nature (1836)
The insufficiency of our faculties of perception — an insufficiency verified by our faculties of conception and reasoning — is what has given birth to philosophy. The history of doctrines attests it... No matter how abstract a conception may be it always has its starting point in a perception.
- Bergson, The Creative Mind (1956)
For these thinkers above, the key to understanding the function of perceptions in our phenomenal experience is not what we find in the properties of the perceptual structure, but what we find missing. Take a look at the objects in your room right now. What you will not find, under any circumstances, is an isolated perceptual structure which does not present itself in the context of many other perceptual structures. The lamp does not present itself apart from the table or floor it is resting on. The door does not present itself apart from the walls it is situated between, and the computer monitor does not present itself apart from the wires through which electrical currents pass in order to make the display possible. What is the reason for this fact? As Hegel remarked above, a truly isolated property would be "reduced to mere meaning" and "involute into itself". Put more simply, the perceptual property would disappear, i.e. we would no longer perceive it with any outer quantitative structure. As long as a perceptual structure remains connected to other perceptual structures, and those structures to yet more structures, so on and so forth, the property we can isolate only in our thought is still serving a function in our experience, and it is this function which explains its continued perceptual existence.
So what is this function? It is found within the complement of all perceptual structures, which are their conceptual meanings. Perceptions are like voids of meaning; they are negative images which invite us to fill their voids with our meaningful concepts. This negative image relates to Berkeley's quote above - if we are thinking about a "sensible thing", then we are perceiving it with our thought, and, if we are perceiving it with our thought, that means we have not yet exhausted that perception with our conceptual meaning. Therefore, there cannot possibly exist a thought about some-thing which we have never perceived. Such thinking would be perfectly united with its object and there would be no perception of the object as a distinct entity. Goethe points to this "holy secret" of Nature as well, because "each and every feature" she carries in her perceptions serve as a 'suction' on our conceptual cognition - what appears as an outer 'thing' in our perception is, in essence, an absence of inner conceptual meaning. She offers her appearances as "inside out and outside in" by presenting what is truly absent (meaning) as a perceptual structure. Nature, by presenting her appearances in this manner, invites (or demands) our thoughts to render her subtle meanings increasingly more transparent than opaque. Consider this imaginative visual analogy of the process provided to me by a like-minded soul:
Cleric wrote:Let us imagine ourselves in a 'God' state. We think the thought 'circle' and our cognition assumes the "shape" of the meaning of 'circle'. Our whole reality then consists of the meaning of 'circle': there would be no need for any thought-perception of it, because we experience the complete meaning of it - our cognition is one and the same with the idea, i.e. the meaningful quality of 'circle-ness' through and through. There is nothing that a perception could add to the idea that we now experience as the entire meaning of our Divinity. In fact, if we have a perception in our Divine mind, then this means that there is at least one more idea present - the idea of 'perception'. In the first state, our whole Universe was 'made' of the meaning of 'circle'. Now, in addition to that, we experience also the idea of 'reflection', something which we have thrust out of ourselves in order to symbolize in perception the meaning of 'circle' which was previously our complete reality.
We then 'exhale' out our own cognitive essence and create a void shaped as circle. If we fill it completely with our perfect cognitive essence, then everything becomes the invisible inner meaning of 'circle' again. But we don't allow this to happen. We resist the suction and we keep the void open. Now this void exists for our Divine being. We can now experience many other ideas in relation to it. The void tries to suck in from our meaningful essence an infinity of possible ideas that can try to approximate its shape (every idea except 'circle', which would close the void perfectly). For example, we can try to fill the void with a meaningful concept in the shape of a 'hexagon'. It is like we are saying: "this thing looks to me like a hexagon." The void draws in our cognitive essence into itself and we assume the meaning-shape of a hexagon. Yet, the perception does not completely disappear because the idea that we experience is not a perfect fit. The hexagon fills the circle but there are six sectors of the circle that remain:
Those six sections which remain in the circle image above (light green) correspond to perceptions which persist in the world around us. Take a moment to remember here that the purpose of this phenomenological approach is to indicate how perceptions manifest in our immanent experience. We are not interested in assuming anything about the "fundamental essence" of perceptions or generalizing our immanent experience into any abstract "universal principle" which governs the entire Cosmos. There is no good fruit to be produced from any such purely abstract endeavor, which, as Bergson put it, attempts to "leap in one bound to the eternal". For now, we only need to ask ourselves - when we look at the world around us, assuming we are looking with genuine attention and interest, do the perceptions in our surrounding enviroment invite us, or even compel us, to fill their voids with our meaningful concepts as illustrated above? I do not think this fact is reasonably doubted by anyone engaging in this exercise with good will. We can remember here Bergson's observation that insufficient perception, revealed as such by our conceptual reasoning, has given birth to all philosophy (and, in fact, all knowing inquiries in human history). The next step of our phenomenological endeavior is to confirm the reasoning above with specific perceptual phenomena in our experience.
For instance, let's consider the letters and words we use when speaking and writing, which are those same ever-evolving letters and words which Barfield used to sketch an entire historical account of Western culture. These are the letters and words which I have written previously and which you are reading right this moment. So the perceptions, in this case, are the letters which make up the words, the words which make up sentences, the sentences which make up paragraphs, and so forth. What actually occurs when these perceptions present themselves to our eyes, in the case of reading? We perceive the outer structure of those words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. - which we call their "syntax" - and that syntax stimulates our thought to go searching for the inner conceptual meaning which makes sense of that syntactical structure - which we call their "semantics". No words have semantic meaning in isolation, but rather that meaning lives in the empty spaces between the letters, words and sentences (the latter spaces are indicated by what we call "punctuation"). Consider the following sentence in three formulations to discern carefully how your own cognitive activity responds when perceiving them:
(2) "hereli esthewhitemo usewhowaseate nbytheb rowncat".
(3) "herelies thewhitemouse, whowas eatenbythe browncat".
What else have I done in formulations #2 and #3 above apart from creating and enlarging (or modifying with punctuation) empty spaces within the syntax of the letters and words for your conceptual meanings to fill more easily? Nothing else has been done besides that. Note how the empty spaces do not automatically bring meaning to the structure, but only reveal it after our cognitive activity has been invited in to assume its 'shape' and we accept the invitation with meaningful engagement. The same exact logic used above will also apply to all other perceptual phenomena in our experience. Consider music when we are listening, singing, or dancing to it and discerning its underlying rhythm. This rhythm is discerned, usually subconsciously, by the silent spaces ("intervals") between the beats, notes, and chords. The musical aesthetic also allows us to broaden our phenomenology a bit more to begin considering how our perceptions do not only include physical structures, but also temporal ones. The temporal structures are easily missed when considering simple shapes, objects in our rooms, or words in an essay, but not so much when considering our auditory perception of music, if we are genuinely listening for them. The term "liminal space" was developed to refer to that duration of transition between one state of being and the next state, and in music these spaces are exemplified by "rhythmic thresholds".
Psychologists who have studied these rhythmic thresholds have identified the lowest possible limit that the mind can perceive, with normal waking cognition, as 33 beats per minute ("lower perceptual limit"). They also identified approximately 240 beats per minute as the "upper perceptual limit", which is not the fastest speed at which music can be played, but the threshold at which our normal cognition will fail to notice any significant difference in the musical structure if it were to become any faster. It is very important to remember that these thresholds are limits of our own normal cognitive perception at any given time, rather than absolute limits on the liminal spacing of perception. Above we have already reasoned that these 'spaces' between perceptions (musical beats/notes) seem to invite more conceptual activity the larger they become, but is that the only factor at play? In seeking this answer, we are asking what our immanent experience discloses to us when listening to music at various speeds within these perceptual limits. To be clear, I am not claiming the following is an exact mathematical science. It may not even be a great representation of the perceptual semantics we are exploring. However, with normal waking cognition, and within the narrow boundaries of a written essay, it is likely the best that I can do. We will proceed with the phenomenology of temporal perception by listening to the following musical clips in three stages.
(2) Above-Mean Perceptual Limit (180 BPM)
(3) [Almost] Upper Perceptual Limit (240 BPM - Drums)
How did these three clips rate on a spectrum of inviting liminal spaces for your cognition to fill their voids with conceptual meaning? For me, clip #1 was a struggle due to the really prolonged temporal gaps. Yet, after about 10-20 seconds, I could feel my cognitive activity picking up and searching for meaning to imbue within the liminal spaces. Clip #3 was the most difficult for my cognitive activity, as the drum beats came in fast and furious, leaving almost no room for my activity to be welcomed into the song's abode. Clip #2 was the most welcoming by far for me, and, although there was some struggle for the first few bars, it quickly invited my cognitive activity into its natural progression of deep aesthetic meaning and made it feel very welcome. At this point, some readers may be wondering whether their cognitive preferences were mostly an artifact of the song choices, i.e. a result of the fact that most people will prefer Vivaldi's Four Seasons more than an unknown slow-motion Moon song and a death metal hyper-speed drum performance. I don't deny such factors are relevant, but the real question is, are these other preferential factors also reflections of the liminal spacing between the musical perceptions? Reason tells me that our preferences for songs will have a lot to do with how much cognitive 'suction' their liminal spacing stimulates within us.
Much more can be said about the dynamics occurring in these liminal spaces of perceptual phenomena, but now we need to begin returning to the main phenomena at issue in this essay series - mechanism. How many readers would be more willing to apply the adjective "mechanistic" to Clip #3 than they would for the other clips? With that clear connection between the over-narrowing of liminal spacing and meaning, we begin to see what mechanization really takes away from our cognition and perception of the world phenomena we are always encountering around us. It is not only the overall meaning available to any given population which is sacrificed in the ever-increasingly mechanized world, but also the capacity for each individual to play a decisive role in co-creating that meaning through an ever-evolving courtship with Nature; the capacity to microcosmically build up our legacy by giving birth to meaning which will serve as the stable foundations of knowledge for our descendants in centuries to come. In the next part of this essay, we will look more closely and precisely at this phenomena of mechanization in the digital age.
Before we get to this next part, though, it is important to consider that a genuine phenomenology does not arbitrarily end once it diagnoses a deep problem in our experience. This pessimistic and cynical approach to phenomenal inquiry in recent decades is itself an expression of mechanism - it is the computer program terminating once it completes a few basic iterations of its code. The genuine inquiry, instead, seeks to evolve with its phenomena as the nerve-senses evolve within a living organism and continually feed back meaningful information to the brain; it seeks to become increasingly united in meaning with the phenomena and therefore anticipate how its future stages will blossom in our experience. To employ a photographic analogy, the genuine phenomenology seeks to focus its lens vertically and deeply on its subject, rather than only widely and horizontally. Our thoughts must be transfigured into seeds planted deeply within the perceptual soil, rather than scattered loosely over the ground. We must remember to go deep into the phenomena, not wide. Going deep with our cognitive activity is the essence of life and novelty, while going wide inevitably becomes repetitive, mechanistic, and, therefore, the enemy of life.