Adur, my dream aligns best with what I perceive as your more pluralist approach of there being many valid paths to the One. Also, I caution that ethnocentrism runs incredibly deep because culture was our survival school as social beings. Sadly, I note that your parenthetical comment -- (probably English-speaking) -- raises the issue to high relief. As Wade Davis asks (here), how would it feel to you if the chosen language group was completely outside of your cultural experience and did not reflect your conditioned sense of reality?Adur Alkain wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:57 amAshvin,AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:17 amAdur Alkain wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:46 pm
I really like Barfield. I found Saving the Appearances a very interesting and inspiring read. Saying that he was ethnocentric was not intended as an insult. But it's a fact.
There is something very interesting about all you Eastern mystical types, in which I include Eugene, yourself (Adur), Justin, probably Lou, Ben, Marteen, and I am sure a few others on the forum - anyone with natural affinity to Eastern mystical tradition (which I presume would also be reflected in big 5 personality test in high level of trait openness to experience and low trait conscientiousness) - you have a complete inability to separate out logical arguments from personal emotions, i.e. sympathies and antipathies. Since calling someone "ethnocentric" is not insulting, this fact definitely should not be either. You guys assume that anyone who reaches a logical, reasoned out conclusion which highlights Western spiritual development must do so because of ethnocentric bias. Even if there is no logical connection between those two things other than your pure uninformed speculation - uninformed by your own admission - you still feel very confident in the conclusion. (Adur's quote of Barfield from A History in English Words is great example of this phenomena)
Why do you assume that? Because it is what you guys do in all of your own arguments! Therefore, you assume everyone else must reason in the same way you do - form the sympathies and antipathies for a position first, and only then reason out from those. Of course this will not be admitted, because it is repressed in the shadow intellect. The 'compensation' is to project it out onto all others as a sort of 'atonement' - "I am making up for my own bias by calling it out in everyone else". Sometimes the people you call out will have that bias, sometimes not - it's a matter of pure luck since logical reasoning has taken a backseat to unexamined sympathies and antipathies. The latter are not actually "formed", though, but come with you at birth, so it is completely outside of any reasoned considerations in this lifetime.
I don't expect any of you guys to accept this argument, as the egocentrism involved is very potent and therefore defense mechanisms will be strong, but if others pay close to attention and see the similarities between your responses to topics concerning Western spiritual evolution, which in this iteration have all manifested in relation to poor old chap Barfield, it will be very evident. Adur, I still hold out a bit of hope that you can get introspective on this issue and overcome the natural antipathy for Western spiritual evolution by prioritizing Reason and logic, but it will take quite a bit of effort. In all seriousness, I really appreciated your work on the QM front and in challenging BK's idealism, but the next step you need to take from abstract model to concrete Thinking is blocked by these sorts of unexamined prejudices, so you really need to focus on removing those blockages.
I don't feel insulted in the least. But I wouldn't call myself an "Eastern mystical type". I'm much more interested in quantum mechanics than in Buddhism or Vedanta, for example. My favourite spiritual tradition is Shamanism (which in my view lies at the root of all spirtual traditions on Earth).
I never took that "big 5 personality test", in part because I can't stand Jordan Peterson, and in part because it looks to me rather arbitrary and superficial. But you are spot on in saying that I would rate high in "openness to experience" and very, very low in "conscientiousness".
I fear this lack of "conscientiousness" is the main issue here. I tend to throw about these offhand remarks (like that I can't stand Jordan Peterson, for example) without thinking much about them. I'm just expressing a personal feeling, not trying to make a logical argument. I'm simply enjoying the conversation, I'm taking part in this forum because I'm having fun. But I can see that for some of you (like you and Cleric, especially) this forum is a much more serious affair, and I can understand that this lightness of mine may seem annoying or even insulting. I'm sincerely sorry for that. I admire your conscientiousness, honestly. And I learn a lot from you.
That said, I'm perfectly able to distinguish between logical arguments and personal emotions. But for me both are important. I personally feel very strongly that all human cultures on Earth are equally valid and valuable. The ongoing loss of indigenous languages and cultures across the world is a tragedy, in my view. But I can clearly separate that personal feeling I have (I have always felt an emotional affinity with indigenous peoples, since I was a kid) from logical arguments.
The logical argument in this case would go like this: the notion of cultural evolutionism (which was supported by anthropologists like Durkheim and Lévy-Bruhl) has been largely dismissed in contemporary anthropology, on purely scientific grounds. Here is a quote from Wikipedia ("Unilineal evolution" article):
But like I said, I don't think this "ethnocentric bias" invalidates Barfield's work in any way. I think his insights about the evolution of Western mind are deep and accurate. And I personally find the work of Lévy-Bruhl much more interesting than more "scientific" approaches to ethnology. These 20th century "scientific" approaches are rooted in materialism, and view the evolution of humanity as a basically meaningless and purposeless process.The early 20th century inaugurated a period of systematic critical examination, and rejection of unilineal theories of cultural evolution. Cultural anthropologists such as Franz Boas, typically regarded as the leader of anthropology's rejection of classical social evolutionism, used sophisticated ethnography and more rigorous empirical methods to argue that Spencer, Tylor, and Morgan's theories were speculative and systematically misrepresented ethnographic data. Additionally, they rejected the distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" (or "modern"), pointing out that so-called primitive contemporary societies have just as much history, and were just as evolved, as so-called civilized societies. They therefore argued that any attempt to use this theory to reconstruct the histories of non-literate (i.e. leaving no historical documents) peoples is entirely speculative and unscientific. They observed that the postulated progression, a stage of civilization identical to that of modern Europe, is ethnocentric.
Like I said, I'm completely on board with this idea of a spiritual evolution unfolding in our Western culture. I can't wait for that "final participation" to take over. This tumbling civilization desperately needs it! But I still feel that indigenous peoples should be left alone to find their own path, their own evolution (if they want or need to evolve at all; maybe some of them don't).
You haven't really addressed that question, as far as I can see. What is your view? Do you think that there is no "salvation" outside the spiritual evolution Barfield talks about? Do you feel that indigenous cultures are lacking something? I'm open to that idea. But I can't help feeling that those indigenous cultures have valuable wisdom in them. My dream for the future of humanity is a sense of a global spiritual-scientific community (probably English-speaking) peacefully and harmoniously coexisting with the richness of cultural diversity. This would be a global spiritual community where all kinds of different spiritual views could exist side by side, engaged in a peaceful, enriching dialogue.
Ashvin, my path is not Eastern mystical. It is a syncretic combination of African indigenous, Amerindian shamanic and Abrahamic mystical (Jewish, Christian, Sufi). I also have great appreciation for the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and more in a pluralistic appreciation for the gifts of a broad spectrum of Wisdom traditions. That said, the Holy Cross, Jesus and Mary are firm in my heart and fundamental to how I integrate my understanding.