Re: MD Barfield is Wrong

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 10 2005 - 11:19:16 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD The London Bombing"

    Mike, I think I agree ...

    He is talking mainly about the "represented", so I couldn't see why he
    would make an erroneous distinction between how we see a tree as
    opposed to a rainbow. As you say any error is in that "uninterpreted"
    world.

    Ian

    On 7/8/05, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Hi Ian,
    >
    > Since you sent your message, my copy of Saving The Appearances
    > arrived. While I understand your objection, and agree that Barfield's
    > physics of rainbows in dubious, I don't think this damages the point
    > he's trying to make.
    >
    > You objected:
    > > 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.
    >
    > The purpose of the rainbow and tree examples is to show how we
    > distinguish genuine phenomena (or appearances, or representations)
    > from hallucinatory appearances. Barfield is not really interested in
    > "the unrepresented", the realm which your objection relates to.
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > His point is that the rainbow *we see* depends, in part, on the nature
    > of our eyeballs. Sure, beings can sense light without having anything
    > so complex as an eyeball, but such a being would have sensations very
    > different to ours.
    >
    > > Should I read on past Chapter 4 (Participation) or does it all depend
    > > on his erroneous start ?
    >
    > Erroneous his physics may be, but Barfield's thesis depends much more
    > upon his initial argument that what we label as "reality" is formed of
    > collective representations, in other words, shared phenomena. If you
    > read on, this will probably become clear.
    >
    > All I'm wondering is, why is a Barfield beginner (who's only read nine
    > chapters) the first to jump to his defense? Scott, where are you?!
    >
    > Regards,
    > Mike
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Sun Jul 10 2005 - 11:59:54 BST