The symbolism of the 'apple' in the Old Testament is that it is taken from 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. So it represents the advent of self-consciousness — Wayfarer
Ultimately this is always true because Otherness is the true esoteric bondage that lies beneath the exoteric bondage of social oppression. Both oppressor and oppressed are equally in bondage to Otherness. — Noble Dust
How so?that view will inevitably lead to commodifying people, an element in the Western consumerism you're so critical of, Augustino. — Noble Dust
Does this mean moral equality amongst people? Or?equality I'm talking about is spiritual — Noble Dust
I'm highly highly skeptic of historical narratives which have direction. Human history, I am quite convinced, has no direction. We're not "heading" towards anything. Have you ever read anything by Eric Voegelin?How can a new inner spiritual life be brought about in the West in order to enact these concepts? It's a dizzying prospect, but tying in Barfield's concept of the evolution of consciousness actually might bring a sense of hope to the situation; it's almost a superseding of progressive humanism in that it comes out of the godforsaken age we're in and reunites with God, reaches out the hand to God's outstretched hand. — Noble Dust
I don't know if you are aware of Hegel's 'Master/ Slave' dialectic? — John
Postmodernism represents quite possibly the most dangerous ideological virus that has infected the human mind. And the source of it isn't some success of science or anything of this sort - the source of it is an attitude which comes from within the human heart. The post-modernist sees that science has succeeded in changing some of our physical circumstances. Now that success has aroused and awakened the worm from his heart. — Agustino
The symbolism of the 'apple' in the Old Testament is that it is taken from 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. So it represents the advent of self-consciousness
ā Wayfarer
That's a great interpretation that aligns with Barfield's ideas. Is that an original interpretation of yours? That idea in connection with Barfield is something I want to study. — Noble Dust
But Ciceronianus, I feel that otherness is in many regards in our control. The state of our society, the state of the world, is due to people who are just like us, they don't have more than two hands, more than one head, and more than two legs. And we can change it. We can work to make it different. That's eminently within our power. It's not within our immediate power - perhaps - but that doesn't mean that it's forever outside of our grasp. Now orienting yourself this way towards a large goal doesn't lead to suffering, what can lead to suffering is attachement to such a goal in the face of the progression of reality. We can fight for what we believe in, and we can seek to make the world a better place, without increasing our psychological suffering. We don't have to sit down in our desks and accept it, as if it wasn't human beings like us who have created the world. — Agustino
Certainly. But I'm not referring to people different than us, simply to the state of society. Otherness isn't necessarily other people who happen to have different beliefs and so forth. It's also social organisation, cultural values, etc. which we may wish to alter or make better or improve.From the Stoic perspective, I think the fact that there are people different from us (other than we are) is not in our control; what is in our control is how we react to it. — Ciceronianus the White
There's a glimmer of truth in the idea that only the oppressed can then experience freedom (whatever freedom is); but I would counter that by saying that even the oppressor is oppressed; an act of oppression is always born from oppression first experienced by the one who is now oppressing. An example is how often sexual abuse is a cycle. — Noble Dust
Certainly. But I'm not referring to people different than us, simply to the state of society. Otherness isn't necessarily other people who happen to have different beliefs and so forth. It's also social organisation, cultural values, etc. which we may wish to alter or make better or improve. — Agustino
Do you think the idea of freedom as primary is compatible with a theologically evolutionary view of spirit, though? — John
because freedom and creativity rely on the possibility that there are many ways the story of God and humanity may turn out. — John
The objectification of spirit that Berdyaev warns against seems to be exemplified in Steiner's notion of a 'science of anthroposophy' or 'spiritual science'. — John
I place a lot of emphasis on intuition. Berdyaev's critique of discursive reasoning in the first chapter of The Meaning of the Creative Act has been pretty influential for me. — Noble Dust
I think I've always intuitively felt the existence of a spiritual telos. I've always had an obsession with eschatology. — Noble Dust
So, all that being said, I don't see how these concepts are deterministic. It seems like you equate any sense of origin with determinism; maybe I just don't understand the academic philosophical concepts of determinism well enough, but I see no problem with viewing an evolutionary theology as stemming from a primordial freedom. A static view of consciousness actually feels more deterministic to me; God imbued mankind with one unchanging consciousness and now he's enslaved to it unless he "accepts Jesus", or some form of the usual narrative. In this view he's basically just deterministically enslaved to God's will because he's a static being. No freedom in sight. — Noble Dust
There are, in a sense, many ways the story can turn out; many potential versions of a telos. You could maybe build an argument that the evolution of consciousness is pointing towards the birth of a telos, one that we don't yet know. — Noble Dust
Ah, now that's a book I haven't yet read, but want to, — John
Perhaps a general telos; love, the creation of novelty or redemption perhaps? But nothing too rigid? — John
I'm not sure what you mean by "a static view of consciousness" or "one unchanging consciousness" — John
I tend to think of the changes as ineluctably mysterious; and so I hesitate to associate them with such a loaded idea as 'evolution'. — John
Are you thinking here of something like a shared mystical understanding? — John
What have you read from him? — Noble Dust
An interesting side thought is how much western culture loves great stories; novels, movies, the golden age of TV, etc...in a sense, eschatology permeates all of Western society in that way, and I wonder if our obsession with stories is descended from the Gospel. — Noble Dust
I guess I was thinking if there's no evolution of consciousness, then humanity has always had the same modes of thinking; discursive reason, intuition, imagination, along with emotions, memories, sense data...and I don't think that's true. I think a lot of complex factors (many of them spiritual) lead to changes in consciousness over the course of history. So I don't really think in Teilhard's terms of consciousness being connected to material evolution. — Noble Dust
If you can't reconcile origins with freedom, how do you view both concepts? — Noble Dust
I did NOT write that review >:OIt's interesting you should say that, I searched the book on Amazon earlier and found this in the lone review of it:
"It is written with a more unrestrained style than is usually found in Berdyaev's books. It is Berdyaev with the gloves off, fighting mad. (Berdyaev in a later postscript disavowed its angry tone, although he did not repudiate its ideas.)". — John
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement ā just fascinating conversations.