From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 04:02:27 BST
Paul,
As a long-time advocate of Barfield on this forum, I can't help but reply.
> The first is the type of thinking of which we are
> almost completely unaware, the thinking that, along
> with perception, effectively constructs our reality in
> terms of the representations that make up our familiar
> world.
I think this needs partial correction. I understand "figuration" *as*
perception, not as happening "along with" perception. That is, it is the
process that turns what Barfield calls "the particles" -- e.g., the photons,
air vibrations, etc., into things moving in space. But yes, it can be
considered as a kind of thinking, and, most importantly, can and has changed
over the centuries.
This type of thinking includes both the
> interpretation of sensation into 'things' and provides
> the context in which we experience the relative
> meaning of the 'things' to our immediate situation. To
> experience this in action, when you read this
> sentence, try to see it as black patterns on a white
> screen without seeing 'words' and when you do look at
> the words try not to 'grasp the meaning'. Barfield
> calls this type of thinking 'figuration'. Our
> figuration is our reality. If your figuration changes,
> so does your reality.
Good analogy, except that we *can* with some difficulty see the black on
white patterns, but we cannot experience the particles.
> Now, as I see it, for those of us living in the
> western world (or at the very least for me) figuration
> is dominated by SOM. The concepts we subconsciously
> interpret sensation with come from our culture,
> language and general assumptions about reality which
> are derived from SOM. For most people, I would say
> that their alpha-thinking and beta-thinking is also
> dominated by SOM.
I would put it as: figuration is (since about 1500 AD) completely void
(consciously) of participation. Translation: we perceive objects independent
of ourselves as subjects. SOM is the beta-thinking that results from taking
this situation as absolute. (Science is the alpha-thinking that results.)
>
> It could be argued that our (meaning the posters to
> this forum) beta-thinking is at least in some degree,
> dominated by MoQ. Some of you may claim that your
> 'alpha-thinking', i.e. the way you naturally think and
> reflect 'about' things is also dominated by MoQ. But
> would you agree that only the complete and fundamental
> acceptance of the MoQ would entail that your
> figuration was also dominated by the MoQ? That's how I
> see it. To me, my 'figuration' is still dominated by
> SOM.
>
> In other words, I am engaged in what Barfield calls
> 'double-think'. I am living comfortably in a reality
> of subjects and objects whilst intellectually grasping
> a completely different reality. To me, this is why I
> and maybe others on the forum are having difficulty
> 'really' understanding the MoQ. Particularly with the
> correlation of SOM concepts with MoQ concepts. To
> 'really' understand the MoQ, I would argue, requires
> or perhaps results from the changing of your
> figuration. It no longer provides an explanation for
> your experience, it is your experience.
Agree. See below.
>
> I don't know if it's possible to deliberately and
> permanently change your 'figuration', I suspect it is.
That's what mystics do, at least in the sense of coming to realize
(experience) figuration's contingency. (Also, psychedelic drugs might be
said to temporarily change one's figuration, but without necessarily
breaking one's S/O preconceptions, which is why they are as likely to be
harmful as beneficial.)
> Furthermore, I don't know if it is wholly desirable,
> what are the ontological implications?
The main problem is the social implication. If you change your figuration,
your reality is no longer the same as that of everyone around you, so you
are by definition insane.
But another way of looking at it is that since we assume that Quality (or
God) is Real, yet do *not* find it in our figuration, then we should look on
ourselves as insane (which I take to be a better way of looking at the
traditional concept of Original Sin). This is why I promote what I call
Ironic Metaphysics. We have (thanks to authors like Pirsig and Barfield and
others), figured out (through beta-thinking) that we are currently in an
insane state, and so even our alpha- and beta-thinking is suspect. As you
say, it can't help but be SOM-ish, since our figuration is S/O. So we must
be very careful in our alpha- and beta-thinking, and one tool in this regard
is irony.
> My general feeling right now is that it is a gradual
> thing and that, using Barfield terms, maybe the MoQ
> needs to start as beta-thinking and slowly move across
> into alpha-thinking and begin to seep into figuration
> completely over the next few hundred years.
Socially, yes. Individually, one can hope for faster results. The real
question in my mind is how soon Western institutional religions will catch
on to this. It is, in my opinion, their only viable option to modern, and
postmodern, secularism.
- Scott
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 : Fri May 02 2003 - 04:05:43 BST