Philosophical Speculations

Kaje977 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 4:48 pm I see, that makes a lot of sense to me. What this seems to imply is, that it is our own responsibility now to take evolution in our hands now, basically. The way how things were previously do remind me dimly of old traditions such as paganism and shamanism. I can see why some critics felt offended by Barfield, especially those who still live and experience those older traditions deeply, or at least, to a close degree.

Interestingly, this has been on my mind for a while:
In many other fields, people try to get closer to the truth, constantly evolving and expanding old insights on a higher level with new ones. But it often seems to be the case in spiritual circles that any criticism of older spiritual systems regarding the state of consciousness is seen as a problem. It reminds me a little of a regulars' table with people who make cups out of porous clay because it is an old tradition and (surely) it engages a lot of discussion and speculation, each debating in what kind of arrangements of that porous clay will make it a little more stable, surely a few better methods than the others, but the clay ultimately is in itself porous regardless and will break apart sooner or later. And then someone, with a novel idea, comes along who brings new insights to the table and shows: This is better, this makes the cups actually robust, strong and more tangible by not some novel technique of working with the clay, but instead making the clay in an entirely different, new way (from the ground-up), and maybe we should make these cups this way in the future if we don't want them to constantly break apart. But that's too much. It would deem all the arrangements of the porous clay and the experiential investment into these older traditions moot, and threatens the rigidity they deeply rooted in. And then you get booed and accused of moral attacks and personal attacks except that in this example the person didn't even attack their upholding of an old tradition and culture per se, but the continous propagation of such an old system. Because as a form of art or as an expression or a personal way to live, I wouldn't see an issue of it. But as soon as it is being propagated to newcomers who are yet unaffected by these traditions, while no longer suitable for modern stage of consciousness, it does become quite problematic.

All tradition and culture aside (I do not condemn that at all), if there is something that obviously contributes more to evolution and is even more suitable at modern times, why propagate old traditions? I can see why people would practice them still, as a form of identity or even as a form of art. But the real issue to me is the propagation of these out-of-date traditions, as if this is the way to go, ignoring all the historical advancements our consciousness made. What do you think? Is my perception too radical? Some criticized that Barfield's quite similar view stems from a deep-rooted Christian fundamentalism, in which all older traditions are inferior. But I don't think that this was Barfield's intention and even if it was, I don't think one should cling too much on that detail, but look at the general idea that Barfield conveyed. It's not even about "Church Christianity", but about something more profound, something that has very less to do with dogmatic Christianity that we know from the Middle Ages or the crusades.