The World According to Barfield

In this forum both posters and comments will be restricted to topic-specific discourse. Comments that are deemed to be too digressive or off-topic, may be deleted by a moderator.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

JustinG
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by JustinG »

AshvinP wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:53 am You want to have the best of both worlds - taking the undeniable power and inner logic of the metamorphic view but leaving out its most essential conclusions. It is Marx flipping Hegel all over again to come up with "dialectical materialism"... some unimaginative tactics never change.
Ashvin,
I can't see that there could be anything that is other than Spirit (or whatever other name is used) in the system you outline, even though at times you seem to imply that there is such a thing, and that is why practical affairs are not truly spiritual. Nor do I know what your conception of the 'materialism' in historical materialism is.

Just to clarify, in case we are talking at cross-purposes, my understanding of the latter is in the Theses on Feuerbach previously linked to. The first two sentences of this encapsulate the difference between Marx's materialism and physicalist materialism, on the one hand, and abstract idealism on the other:
Marx said:
"The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such."
Anyway, I have some other things to do and am bowing out of this thread for the time being.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2980
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by AshvinP »

JustinG wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:34 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:53 am You want to have the best of both worlds - taking the undeniable power and inner logic of the metamorphic view but leaving out its most essential conclusions. It is Marx flipping Hegel all over again to come up with "dialectical materialism"... some unimaginative tactics never change.
Ashvin,
I can't see that there could be anything that is other than Spirit (or whatever other name is used) in the system you outline, even though at times you seem to imply that there is such a thing, and that is why practical affairs are not truly spiritual. Nor do I know what your conception of the 'materialism' in historical materialism is.

Just to clarify, in case we are talking at cross-purposes, my understanding of the latter is in the Theses on Feuerbach previously linked to. The first two sentences of this encapsulate the difference between Marx's materialism and physicalist materialism, on the one hand, and abstract idealism on the other:
Marx said:
"The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such."
Anyway, I have some other things to do and am bowing out of this thread for the time being.

There is not anything other than Spirit (Thinking), and there is not only Spirit. There is also Willing and Feeling activities. Metaphysically, all activities are conscious activity. What aspect of the pole between Spirit (ideational activity) and "matter" (phenomrnal manifestation of that activity) is entirely dependent on our relational perspective. It is our current organization which distinguishes or divides (in modern age) the poles in that manner to begin with. That is unavoidable conclusion of the metamorphic progression.

Currently we are in the age where the spiritual within the phenomenal manifestations must be reborn through our individual Thinking ("saving the appearances"). I must use abstact concept to speak about it, as I have not gone into imaginative Thinking like Cleric has, and you will see that reflected in his posts, but none of this should be taken as abstract. It all deals with our concrete perception-cognition in ever waking and sleeping moment of our lives.

Re: Marx - it does not sound to me like he is rejecting metaphysical materialism at all, just desiring to emphasize the "sensuous" aspect of the fundamentally material world. Marx declared religion is an "opiate of the masses". So are you holding he distinguishes religion from spirituality and holds the latter to be an actual reality? I am very skeptical of that. Regardless, his historical materialism is incorrect under the metamorphic view as it consider material relations rather than spirtual ones to be the driving factor of human evolution.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Lou Gold »

ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:59 am
JustinG wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:22 am I really liked Vernon's book.

I read it a while ago but, from memory, it seems to me that Vernon brings Barfield up to date with contemporary times by not implying that the road to final participation necessitates the dying out of indigenous cultures.
Why shouldn't they die out? All cultures do. Ours will, to the extent final participation takes hold. Or do you hold that spiritual development should be denied to some in the name of preservation?
Scott, Wade Davis offers a few reasons:

Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Also briefly referencing Barfield, along with other brilliant thinkers and artists, from McLuhan to James Joyce, this interview with Jeremy Johnson addresses the 'in-between' ways in which we can best navigate the mutational phase transition, with all its foundering dissolution, disruption, confusion, insufficient treatment of transitory symptoms, etc, while adapting to the metamorphic process ...
0:00 Introduction
2:32 A Trans-Disciplinary Approach
4:17 Seeking the Whole: Gebser
7:39 Seeking the Whole: Gebser vs. Wilber?
10:27 Modern Totalizing: The Limits of Developmental Maps
15:37 Our Meta Moment between Worlds
20:20 Living the Between: A Non-Totalizing Meta-Narrative?
25:47 The Meta-Crisis, The Meaning Crisis, and the Narrative of the In-Between
36:03 A Felt Sense of the Whole: Metamodern Reclaiming of the Non-Modern
48:28 Approaches to Modern Systems Transformation
58:47 Meta Spirituality: Being Present to the Whole
1:15:40 Concretizing Presence: Practices for Meta Living
1:23:24 Living Out Our Composite Natures: Concretizing Multiple Structures of Consciousness
1:38:48 The Whole Beyond Everything
1:41:24 A Myth of the Whole: "God" as Originary Presence?

Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
ScottRoberts
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:22 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by ScottRoberts »

Lou Gold wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:15 pm
ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:59 am
JustinG wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:22 am I really liked Vernon's book.

I read it a while ago but, from memory, it seems to me that Vernon brings Barfield up to date with contemporary times by not implying that the road to final participation necessitates the dying out of indigenous cultures.
Why shouldn't they die out? All cultures do. Ours will, to the extent final participation takes hold. Or do you hold that spiritual development should be denied to some in the name of preservation?
Scott, Wade Davis offers a few reasons: [video]
I find nothing wrong with learning all those interesting things about indigenous cultures. To answer Justin's question (how our culture should interact with indigenous cultures) I would say we shouldn't, other than to learn about them. When I say "why shouldn't they die out" I am not saying they should die out. I am only saying it is not up to us to preserve them. They have their reasons for existing, and if those reasons cease to apply, so be it. As far as we (modern industrialized, alienating, ecologically destructive culture) are concerned, they are of our past, and we need to be aware of that, but our mentality is not theirs, and to solve our problems we need to work on ours.
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Lou Gold »

ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:37 pm
Lou Gold wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:15 pm
ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:59 am

Why shouldn't they die out? All cultures do. Ours will, to the extent final participation takes hold. Or do you hold that spiritual development should be denied to some in the name of preservation?


Scott, Wade Davis offers a few reasons: [video]
I find nothing wrong with learning all those interesting things about indigenous cultures. To answer Justin's question (how our culture should interact with indigenous cultures) I would say we shouldn't, other than to learn about them. When I say "why shouldn't they die out" I am not saying they should die out. I am only saying it is not up to us to preserve them. They have their reasons for existing, and if those reasons cease to apply, so be it. As far as we (modern industrialized, alienating, ecologically destructive culture) are concerned, they are of our past, and we need to be aware of that, but our mentality is not theirs, and to solve our problems we need to work on ours.
I would say, as an alternative to your bolded comment, "since they are of our past and we are of their future, we need to learn from each other." With regard to active participation in evolution, I would be heedful of the advice given by the great modern voice of an American Land Ethic, Aldo Leopold, "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces."
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2980
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:18 pm Also briefly referencing Barfield, along with other brilliant thinkers and artists, from McLuhan to James Joyce, this interview with Jeremy Johnson addresses the 'in-between' ways in which we can best navigate the mutational phase transition, with all its foundering dissolution, disruption, confusion, insufficient treatment of transitory symptoms, etc, while adapting to the metamorphic process ...
0:00 Introduction
2:32 A Trans-Disciplinary Approach
4:17 Seeking the Whole: Gebser
7:39 Seeking the Whole: Gebser vs. Wilber?
10:27 Modern Totalizing: The Limits of Developmental Maps
15:37 Our Meta Moment between Worlds
20:20 Living the Between: A Non-Totalizing Meta-Narrative?
25:47 The Meta-Crisis, The Meaning Crisis, and the Narrative of the In-Between
36:03 A Felt Sense of the Whole: Metamodern Reclaiming of the Non-Modern
48:28 Approaches to Modern Systems Transformation
58:47 Meta Spirituality: Being Present to the Whole
1:15:40 Concretizing Presence: Practices for Meta Living
1:23:24 Living Out Our Composite Natures: Concretizing Multiple Structures of Consciousness
1:38:48 The Whole Beyond Everything
1:41:24 A Myth of the Whole: "God" as Originary Presence?

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting because I have been re-reading significant chunks of EPO (especially later chapters dealing with the 4th dimension of Time) for new essay installment. I think JJ is correct to sort of distance Gebser from Wilber - in fact, there are quite a few places where Gebser specifically calls out "new" conceptions of Time that people were advocating in his day, which were actually just reversions to magical and mythical conceptions. It seems to me that would apply to Wilber and many other more "Eastern mystical" formulations of integral theory. Besides that, I do not know too much about JJ's emphasis apart from comments on Twitter. I do sense that he is more oriented towards the "collective action" mindset, and that is a very dangerous line to cross if one is not careful. In fact, one cannot carefully cross that line at this stage of our metamorphic development.

As Scott points out, there is such a simple principle that we all intuit - "fix yourself before trying to fix others" or, in more mythopoetic language, "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Yet we refuse to take it seriously, or maybe we think it only applies to the most basic and trivial issues we should sort out before launching into our crusades to systemically rearrange "collective practices" of various cultures. That is not the case it all - it applies to all of our own deeply ingrained spiritual issues. We will always do more harm than good when we intervene in others' affairs, especially in the affairs of foreign cultures at a systemic level, if we do not take this spiritual principle seriously. You would think our wars in MENA, as clearly reflected in the Afghanistan debacle now, would have taught us that lesson in the West, but obviously it has not.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Lou Gold »

For those who would like to explore an "ancient-future" mix of consciousness, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants is an excellent read.

Here's a collection of youtube videos about Robin Wall Kimmerer and her work.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Lou Gold »

AshvinP wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:56 pm
As Scott points out, there is such a simple principle that we all intuit - "fix yourself before trying to fix others" or, in more mythopoetic language, "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Yet we refuse to take it seriously, or maybe we think it only applies to the most basic and trivial issues we should sort out before launching into our crusades to systemically rearrange "collective practices" of various cultures. That is not the case it all - it applies to all of our own deeply ingrained spiritual issues. We will always do more harm than good when we intervene in others' affairs, especially in the affairs of foreign cultures at a systemic level, if we do not take this spiritual principle seriously. You would think our wars in MENA, as clearly reflected in the Afghanistan debacle now, would have taught us that lesson in the West, but obviously it has not.
Ashvin, the advanced philosophy is really beyond my paygrade and time available for intellectual study/inquiry but I would like to add (not in argument with your position), "see, accept and love yourself before attempting to fix yourself or trying to fix others." At least, this how I have advanced or evolved or missed the boat in my personal process. The main advice, given to me by one of my important spiritual guides, was: "Remember your work is to be a happy person." Perhaps, some will grok this advice. Perhaps, it will push some others deeper into paradox. If the latter, it may be best to just let it pass.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: The World According to Barfield

Post by Lou Gold »

ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:37 pm
Lou Gold wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:15 pm
ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:59 am

Why shouldn't they die out? All cultures do. Ours will, to the extent final participation takes hold. Or do you hold that spiritual development should be denied to some in the name of preservation?
Scott, Wade Davis offers a few reasons: [video]
I find nothing wrong with learning all those interesting things about indigenous cultures. To answer Justin's question (how our culture should interact with indigenous cultures) I would say we shouldn't, other than to learn about them. When I say "why shouldn't they die out" I am not saying they should die out. I am only saying it is not up to us to preserve them. They have their reasons for existing, and if those reasons cease to apply, so be it. As far as we (modern industrialized, alienating, ecologically destructive culture) are concerned, they are of our past, and we need to be aware of that, but our mentality is not theirs, and to solve our problems we need to work on ours.
Scott, You are quite correct in saying it is not up to us to preserve a culture but it is up to us to preserve and protect the land on which traditional cultures depend in order that they may decide how they want to live and evolve.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Post Reply