From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 12:06:02 BST
Gents,
Despite claiming to be a fan of Barfield (on the strength of Poetic
Diction and History in English Words) I hadn't read Saving the
Appearances until I saw all his "particles" floating past in a couple
of recent threads.
I couldn't comment so I just had to read it. In fact I've had the book
for ages, and now recall why I stopped reading it. His physics is
completely wrong.
He's right that one way or another since Kant, philosophy seems to be
mainly about the difference between (or interface between) what we
perceive and what is "out there". (whether we're talking "immediate
experience", the Quality "event" triplet, or Peircean "firstness",
etc.)
He's right that most 20th century philsophical writing has ignored the
implications of "modern physics" - except where written by physicists,
who understand it, naturally - a big recurring gripe of mine, you'll
recognise. Barfield is not one.
He's right that "trees" are more "tangible" than "rainbows" (they do
more than interact with light for a start). Metaphorically both are
made of "particles', but quite a different mix of particles on quite
different physical levels. He's right that we only see light, and we
only hear sound, everything else is "mental" (alpha or beta thinking).
But his Netwonian, classical, physics is completely up the creek.
There is nothing about a rainbow that depends on human (or any
animalian) eyes seeing, in order for it to exist, individual or
shared, any more than a tree. The refracted light from rainbows is
more "diffuse" and "non-localised" than the reflected light from a
tree, but the light rays (photon streams whatever) are as real in both
cases, whether eyes exist to see them or not. (All the stuff about
where in space and relative to distant hills and hands in your field
of view is garbage - poetic, but garbage none-the-less.) I can make a
rainbow between me and this computer screen (or behind it) by blowing
a raspberry in the right place. And so can you.
His stuff about hearing due to having ears, rather than sensing sound
waves, is suspiciously close to the same evolutionary fallacy that no
being could see (sense light) until the eyeball had come to exist.
Just plain wrong creationist meme.
(There are particles and there are particles, and as it turns out
there is information more fundamental to any. But that's another
story.)
Should I read on past Chapter 4 (Participation) or does it all depend
on his erroneous start ? SO So sad. Poor Mr Barfield, such a promising
poetic start too.
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 12:10:55 BST