tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post6574139439661213375..comments2024-03-29T12:03:37.344+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Original Participation - the spiritual life of hunter gatherer Man (and ourselves as young chidlren)Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88304682085409541622016-11-16T23:57:49.868+00:002016-11-16T23:57:49.868+00:00Thus, for the hunter gatherer the whole world was ...<b>Thus, for the hunter gatherer the whole world was social; a web of relationships. And if we can remember and introspect about our own early childhoods, we can perceive that it was the same situation for each of us; we used to see the world as social, as full of living and conscious entities.<br /><br />(This may also re-emerge in altered states of cosnciousness - such as the 'paranoid' delusions of self-reference in psychotic illnesses, or in some types of brain pathology, or some types of drug intoxication. The social perspective seems to be something of a <i>default</i>.)</b> - Bruce Charlton<br /><br />Shamanic types of states whether brought about with the aid of entheogenic plants or only by ritual seem to be as you describe. <br /><br />It is an interesting thing to consider whether this type of connection with nature would help man feel more connected and more considerate of the natural world of which he is a part. The sense of hyper-individuality and the focus of Western society on that also seems to come with the burden of alienation. Reconciling ourselves with the natural world is long overdue as far as I am concerned. We are a blight today, and that cannot continue without natural processes finding their own ways to establish new equilibriums.<br /><br /><br /><b>The perspective of Barfield brings a further aspect to this subject; which is to notice that for the hunter gatherer the Self was much less developed and distinct than it is for us (living at an advanced stage of the Consciousness Soul); the individual hunter-gatherer is not, therefore, very aware of himself as an individual - does not perceive a line of demarcation separating himself and 'the world' (when 'the world' includes both the society of other people, and the society of significant entities in the environment - bear, tree, mountain etc.).</b> - Bruce Charlton<br /><br />As mentioned, the hyper-individualism that is inculcated into most of us in the West has problems. We are not separate from nature and to functionally act as if this is so is getting us all in a peck of trouble.Nicholas Fulfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02335736929533911612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-1875401810526695042016-11-16T23:22:01.626+00:002016-11-16T23:22:01.626+00:00I was raised by a man whose father was a hunter ga...I was raised by a man whose father was a hunter gatherer. My grandfather taught my brother and I traditional skills as well as a different way of looking at the world. <br /><br />My grandfather had a way of seeing everything that was happening in a stretch of the world. He saw the interconnectedness of everything. He taught us as best he could. I think my grandfather was pleased with my brother's spontaneous nature and musical affinity but disappointed that my brother had no interest in our horses, hunting, tracking etc. I was never as spontaneous as my brother but I loved hunting, fishing, horses etc. <br /><br />I lost the last of my grandfather's things he made us in a fire. However, I have tried to teach my grandson the same stories, skills, etc. My grandkids and kids don't see the world the same way. I thought for a while my oldest boy and girl would get it but I was just not able to fight the world. We had no tv for years but we sent the kids to public school, even though we didn't have any until the kids were nearly grown videogames eat up more of their lives. <br /><br />None of my cousins ever saw the world the way my grandfather did. I live on an isolated farm with one of my kids and my grandkids. I want the life I had for my grandkids but the world is not the same. I can't compete with the outside world as well as my grandparents did. The world has had a spiritual change. The magic is covered by something.Donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5930294297320407772016-11-16T19:03:58.616+00:002016-11-16T19:03:58.616+00:00Academic honorifics are an odd thing nowadays... i...Academic honorifics are an odd thing nowadays... in North America, I distinctly observe that university professors prefer to be addressed on a first name basis, and become distinctly uncomfortable or even offended if someone addresses them as Prof. or Dr. (rather like how, more generally, addressing someone 'Sir' works as a form of estrangement.) This could be interpreted positively as wanting to treat students as colleagues, or negatively as not wanting to be reminded that, at the end of the day, professors are in a position of authority over their students....<br /><br />No idea if things are the same in academic departments overseas.<br />Seijio Arakawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02615803270163614513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-33268671033955805582016-11-16T14:06:03.151+00:002016-11-16T14:06:03.151+00:00@JB - Don't worry - if I don't like a comm...@JB - Don't worry - if I don't like a comment, I don't print it!Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-11254416862158661772016-11-16T13:10:34.136+00:002016-11-16T13:10:34.136+00:00
Dr. Charlton, I am sorry. I am not english, and ...<br /><br />Dr. Charlton, I am sorry. I am not english, and partly perhaps therefore influenced in bad manners when it comes to communicating correctly. <br /><br />Please excuse my incorrect personal titulation by your forename.<br /><br />JB<br /><br />Ps. I a m very glad to have found your very interesting blogsite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-77924117134055045962016-11-16T11:01:14.925+00:002016-11-16T11:01:14.925+00:00Thank you.
Bruce said:..."and there can be n...<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Bruce said:..."and there can be no "ought" about such matters"...<br /><br />Perhaps that means as - sacrifice - ? Or - a call - , (or obligation?), to respond to the - calling of mankinds divine destiny - ?..<br /><br />But in the third stage, (3), of independence, or maturity, because of the relatively independence that is reached, there is the only - stage - , where a real choice (of sacfrice, or of an answer, or not answer, to the - call - of divine destiny), could really be made, since that choice would require - independece - , or maturity?..<br /><br />JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-64008027519226437002016-11-16T10:52:52.671+00:002016-11-16T10:52:52.671+00:00Dr Charlton, I disagree on all points! Yet remain ...Dr Charlton, I disagree on all points! Yet remain confident that if we both continue seeking, we will converge. I felt it important to mention my particular findings; one day they may prove useful. Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-13764835787879010392016-11-16T10:30:00.149+00:002016-11-16T10:30:00.149+00:00@JB - OK, but that is at the level of observation ...@JB - OK, but that is at the level of observation and psychology - and there can be not 'ought' about such matters, because the bottom line is merely utilitarian (human gratification); but with Barfield we are in the realms of divine destiny. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-52634737011252617642016-11-16T10:27:29.572+00:002016-11-16T10:27:29.572+00:00@simon - Interesting points; but I think the resol...@simon - Interesting points; but I think the resolution is that Steiner's greatest influence on Barfield came from his first three philosophical books - the one on Goethe's world view, his PhD thesis and then The Philosophy of Freedom. <br /><br />I have spent a long time reading these in detail, and they are significantly (metaphysically) different from the preceding Transcendental Idealism - so Kierkegaard's (or Schopenhaur's) critique of Hegel et al does not necessarily or directly apply. <br /><br />My understanding of why Anthroposophy failed as a social movement is that it could not (contra to Steiner's hope) in fact be detached from Christianity without degenerating into mere generic secular Leftism (which is what has happened - modern Anthroposophists are fatally compromised by political correctness and the rest of it). <br /><br />But the viable parts of Steiner live on in Barfield, from whom we moderns can pick-up the thread (again, by amplifying the Christian elements which Barfield only sketched-in lightly). <br /><br />I would regard existentialism - while valuable for some people in some situations - as more of a 'mood', or a response to modernity, than a philosophy or a theology - because it lacks a metaphysical basis. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-91480988973306281922016-11-16T10:02:33.001+00:002016-11-16T10:02:33.001+00:00
Interresting descriptions.
One could also divid...<br /><br />Interresting descriptions.<br /><br />One could also divide the stages, that man is going through, both as a species, and through life, as four?<br /><br />1. Dependence of others, and therefore a strive to be in tune with them and a need to obey, or conform, to them, and feelings of being - one - with them. (Childhood)<br /><br />2. A strive for separation from the dependancy, and a will to not be obedient and in harmony to the surroundings, so as to gain independence and selfconciousness (youth).<br /><br />3. Independence and individual conciousness, selfawareness and selfreliance in thoughts and deeds, being responsible for ones own athoughts as well as ones own actions, and baring their consequencies.<br /><br />4. Dependence of others, and therefore a strive to be in tune with them and a need to obey them, or conform to them, and feelings of being - one - with them. (Old age).<br /><br />JBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-86625630397479739442016-11-16T08:01:22.785+00:002016-11-16T08:01:22.785+00:00I have been mulling this topic over for some time....I have been mulling this topic over for some time. I believe Final Participation is indeed the end point - but not as Barfield understood it. Barfield's main influence was Steiner who was a descendant of the Transcendental Idealists. Kierkegaard recognised the Transcendental Idealists were mistaken from their intellectual foundations, and demonstrated this in his work. It is because of this foundation in Transcendental Idealism why I believe the Anthroposophical project ultimately failed.<br /><br />Kierkegaard formulated what came to be known as existentialism as the correct metaphysic for man (not explicitly) as a response to the Transcendental Idealists of his day. I think existentialism is essentially correct, but am unsure where to go from here, especially with regard to a synthesis of it with Christian/Mormon theology and what I understand of Final Participation. It is unprecedented.<br /><br />I am sure it was not coincidence Kierkegaard and Joseph Smith were contemporaries; and the implications of existentialism work very well with Mormon theology.Simonnoreply@blogger.com