JustinG wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:37 amSpeaking 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?AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 11:54 amJustinG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 5:40 am 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).
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.