From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 15:51:43 BST
Wim,
> O.k., let's assume that Barfield showed convincingly that perceptual
> consciousness changed considerably between 500 BC and about 1500 AD. (Are
> you sure this idea is not just as speculative as the idea that minds
worked
> essentially the same before and after this period?)
To answer this convincingly, I would have to type in most of Barfield's
book. He brings in arguments from anthropology and the histories of
language, thought, and art. The question of what kind of change in
perceptual consciousness there was is difficult to pin down, though. The
abstract form of things within this period stays the same (though things
like the importance of perspective in paintings obviously changed). The main
change within this period is the pre-concious effect of perception. Roughly
it is the growth of objectivity. The things perceived have become completely
separated from the perceiver. Barfield gives the thought experiment that if
someone from, say 500 AD were to be suddenly given a modern perceptual
sense, the reaction would be "how things stand out".
I guess you agree that
> the appearance of homo sapiens between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago also
> marked an important change. What makes you think that this change between
> 500 BC and 1500 AD was more important and marked the appearance of a new
> type of patterns of value rather than the change between 100.000 and
50.000
> years ago?
I don't. I assume that the earlier change was the beginning of the social
level, which means the beginning of humanity on earth. I do not deny there
was intellect, but I do deny that until about 500 BC there was any sense
that the intellect was felt by a human being to belong to that human being.
Without that sense of it being "my" intellect, there could be no "thinking
about" (what Barfield calls alpha-thinking).
In sum, the "new type of pattern" is the completion of the divide into
subject and object. The distinction between amor and eros that Campbell
makes (via Rick) is a good example of a consequence. Now that the divide has
been completed, it is time for the intellect to reunite them.
>
> If you agree that conscious motivation of action characterizes the 4th
> level, couldn't people who experienced "gods talking in their heads" not
> consciously use this "god-talk" to motivate their actions when others
asked
> them "why do you do that"? Even if they didn't think of themselves as
moral
> agents, didn't the fact that they asked themselves and others "why?" imply
> that they were?
Did they ask "why do you do that"? (I'm not sure -- it's been a long time
since I read Homer). In any case, they may have seen this question as more
like "which god caused you to do that?" than seeking explanations in
themselves.
- 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 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 16:21:22 BST