RE: MD Barfield's version of the third and fourth levels

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 01:11:20 BST

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Scott and all:

    For starters, Scott offered:
    his "original post on Barfield, which kind of sets out some conclusions, and
    says he "will try at some point to give the argumenatation that leads to
    them." http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0206/0296.html

    Scott offered an essay on Barfield too:
    http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/fdnc/appa.html

    dmb says:
    Thanks. The essay was especially helpful. I could see right away that
    Barfield's ideas are consistent with the ideas of Pirsig, Wilber and others.
    I took a pen and high-lighter to it and made it a mess. I'm not cruel enough
    or ambitious enough to bore you with all of it, but a few examples wouldn't
    hurt.

    "Still today, the invisible word is spoken with a physical gesture, even if
    that gesture has for the most part contracted into the small organs of
    speech. One can at least imagine how the gestures of speech were once made
    with the whole body. This was before man had become "detached from the rest
    of nature after the solid manner of today, when the body itself was spoken
    even while it was speaking." (Saving the Appearances)

    dmb says:
    Spoken with a physical gesture... If language is full of myth and ritual is
    the enactment of a myth and language is contracted or condensed ritual, then
    we can begin to see that in the mythic imagination, in third level thinking,
    myth, ritual and language are not yet seperate things. We make that
    distinction with the intellect, but they were one and the same in the
    pre-Homeric mind. When the gestures of speech were made with the whole body!
    Wow. Why do I suddenly feel like dancing? Or how about this...

    "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."
    (Saving the Appearances)

    dmb says:
    Original and Final Participation. I like the distinction. As Wilber might
    put it, part of the task of our modern intellect was to make distinctions
    and thereby distinquish itself from the original participation mode of
    consciousness. (There is the problem with going too far, from healthy
    differentiation into over-heated dis-association, but let us not complicate
    the story with that for the moment.) And before we can achieve this "final
    participation" these things like art, science and religion will be
    re-integrated into a coherent whole once again. And finally, I loved, Loved,
    LOVED this....

    "To put it rudely, any reasonably honest fool can be objective about
    objects."

    "It must be a different matter altogether, should we be called on to attend,
    not alone to matter, but to spirit; when a man would have to practice
    distinguishing what in himself comes solely from his private personality --
    memories, for instance, and all the horseplay of the Freudian subconscious
    -- from what comes also from elsewhere. Then indeed objectivity is not
    something that was handed us on a plate once and for all by Descartes, but
    something that would really have to be achieved, and which must require for
    its achievement, not only exceptional mental concentration but other efforts
    and qualities, including moral ones, as well." ("Language and Discovery," in
    The Rediscovery of Meaning and Other Essays)

    dmb says:
    Who commanded us to, "Know thyself"? Was it Jesus or Socrates? Whatever. The
    kind of "objectivity" that Barfield describes here strikes me as the kind
    that would lead to wisdom, honest and fair judgements about things and I
    can't imagine why anyone wouldn't love to achieve it.

    Thanks again,
    dmb

    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 Apr 20 2003 - 01:11:36 BST