Owen Barfield's Meaning Crisis and the Evolution of Consciousness

[@johnvervaeke]

Paul I deeply appreciate your ongoing and insightful interest in my work. Thank you for the great commentary and connections.

[@KRGruner]

Professor Vervaeke, huge fan of your Meaning Crisis series and of your ideas in general, but I was surprised to see you mention (with apparently some approval) autopoeisis and Varela (and I suppose by implication, Maturana). I have read quite a bit of their work and fail to see anything making much sense there, especially their view that we actually cannot say we get ANY information from our environment. Perhaps it's me not correctly understanding their meaning, of course (although it can't be a coincidence that their ideas have failed to gain much traction outside of a very narrow circle). Do you have a video or publication of any kind where you specifically discuss autopoiesis/Varela/Maturana? I would be very interested in learning more about what you see of value in their work. Thanks.

[@Ben.....]

Its a conversation i enjoy being a fly on the wall around.

[@ThinkBigAnimation]

Great video! Also thanks for the shout out :D it's true most of my audience seems uninterested in the meaning crisis topic but it was something I was deeply passionate about and I'm glad there are people like you and John discussing these issues.

[@johnvervaeke]

Thank you so much for doing it. I think it is very valuable work.

[@PaulVanderKlay]

I remember when your channel didn't have many subs. That surprised me. Then it surged and that made sense to me, but then recent videos didn't have many hits. KZbin analytics are by no means an infallible measure of value. Keep up the good work.

[@ndkiwikid]

Paul VanderKlay Hey Paul, I really think you’d get a lot out of “Deconstruction, Postmodernism And Philosophy Of Science - Epistemo-critical Bearings” by Christopher Norris, which mirrors Barfields program. You can download a PDF here: download.library1.org/main/793000/8be033691d1359cc396895b327920d74/%28Christopher%20Norris%20vol%202%20n1%201988%29%20Christopher%20Norris%20-%20Deconstruction%2C%20Postmodernism%20And%20Philosophy%20Of%20Science%20-%20Epistemo-critical%20Bearings%20%281988%29.pdf

[@ndkiwikid]

Paul VanderKlay You’d also be interested in “Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff & Mark Johnson slate.com/technology/2014/11/embodied-cognition-metaphors-about-the-physical-world-help-us-reason.html

[@DustonBStout]

Hi Paul, thanks for this fascinating reflection. I’ve been considering this problem from within the Catholic tradition. As it turns out, Pope John Paul II was aiming at this very thing within his teachings on human sexuality. In his book, ‘love and responsibility’ he’s examining the ethics of human sexuality combining a presupposed Aristotelian/Thomistic perspective (telos), while developing the psychology, philosophy, metaphysics of human love drawing out tools from the phenomenological method (objective examination of subjective experience). His reasons for use of the phenomenological method was greatly driven by its emphasis on ‘lived experience’ and lended itself well to personalism and a language that would engage and be comprehended by couples trying to live virtuous marriages. His book ‘theology of the body’ 2nd edition, has a brilliant intro describing his education and how he was trying to combine such seeming contradictory perspectives as Kant and St Thomas. In addition this book gives a biblical/theological account of his thoughts on love and marriage in case you are interested. His project, although about fundamentally about the meaning of human sexuality and of marriage, had the difficulty of integrating perennial modes of thought within Catholic tradition while contributing to the church’s teaching on the topic in a post-Cartesian landscape. Even if you were to disagree with his conclusions (as a non-Catholic or faithful Catholic) his bravery in addressing sexuality in our modern context was remarkable. Keep up the great work! I’m enjoying your commentaries and dialogues. At some level, your channel strikes me as a kind of space for ecumenical dialogue...maybe that’s whats missing in most attempts at ecumenism...real dialogue. Thanks again!

[@PaulVanderKlay]

Thanks for this. I was thinking about how all of this impacts sexuality. I'll have to take a look.

[@TheAnadromist]

Well Paul I have so much to say in response to this that I can't start because I'll go in ten different directions at once. But this has inspired me to start a series on Time fairly soon. Thanks Paul for digging further and further into the meaning issue. It's been a crisis for so long that it seems we are like starving men gnawing on bones with the rats hoping to extract the last of the marrow. (Aha you mentioned Plantinga!)

[@pawpawforhealth]

This video pushes mind to new heights. What a gift you are, brother Paul! Sorry I have to break off to work. Back for another helping in hour two.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

Thanks very much Paul. It's both exciting for me and helpful to have you unpacking and making links with what others like John Vervaeke are saying. Much of what you highlight as your own questions reminds me of what Barfield called "Residual Unprocessed Positivism" - like the materialist who experiences the wonder of the cosmos in their act of observing but refuses to countenance what that might mean about the inside of the cosmos itself. But as Barfield put it, "Consciousness is not a bit of the world stuck onto the rest of it. It's the inside of the whole world." If I were to summarise the way through the meaning crisis it'd be the way to knowing of that inside of the whole once more, without loss.

[@playswithbricks]

I started "Saving the Appearances" by Barfield this past weekend and I was way over my head. I'm thankful that this video exists to hopefully shed some light.

[@job8994]

This addresses so many things that have been on my mind of late. Thanks Paul.

[@WhiteStoneName]

Job A lot of this comes down to *our way of seeing*, not just what ideas we have/hold to per sé. This is what Barfield was getting at (IMO) with his poetic diction recovering participatory ways of seeing the world. Reintegrated. Sacramental. Unified. “Of one mind/eye”. Not transactional. Connected. Whole. I’ve been meditating for a few months on Jesus’s words from the Sermon on the Mount. “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is [k]clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is [l]bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and [m]wealth.” k: Matthew 6:22 Or healthy; or sincere l: Matthew 6:23 Or evil m: Matthew 6:24 Gr mamonas, for Aram mamon (mammon); i.e. wealth, etc., personified as an object of worship If you’re interested in going deeper into the words (which I always recommend ;)): 👇🏼 biblehub.com/lexicon/matthew/6-24.htm Pay careful attention to the words translated “clear”, “bad”, & “wealth” (mammon). Clear: biblehub.com/greek/573.htm Bad: biblehub.com/greek/4190.htm Mammon: biblehub.com/greek/3126.htm I have many thoughts about all this that I’d love to talk with you about, if you want. :)

[@byaringan13]

Malcolm Guite is awesome! I love his videos on CS Lewis and the gospels. You should really look into them.

[@christopherk222]

I think his outer / inner distinction corresponds in some way to matter / form in Aristotle. . . see The Platonic Tradition / Peter Kreeft (Audible). . .

[@Pilgrimsinterests]

As Malcolm spoke on the inner and outer meaning of words, and he spoke on how Barfield taught how in reading words through a specific venue (i.e. poetry, music, etc) one could undergo a felt change of consciousness as the full meaning of words were brought to light, it caused me to reflect on a commentary of 2 Corinthians 3:6 by the church father Gregory of Nyssa. In that passage Paul speaks on the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the Scriptures, and this is what Gregory wrote: “For this reason, then, the Apostle tells us that those who look upon the body of the Scripture have “a veil upon their heart 2 Corinthians 3:15,” and are not able to look upon the glory of the spiritual law, being hindered by the veil that has been cast over the face of the law-giver. Wherefore he says, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” showing that often the obvious interpretation, if it be not taken according to the proper sense, has an effect contrary to that life which is indicated by the Spirit, seeing that this lays down for all men the perfection of virtue in freedom from passion, while the history contained in the writings sometimes embraces the exposition even of facts incongruous, and is understood, so to say, to concur with the passions of our nature, whereto if any one applies himself according to the obvious sense, he will make the Scripture a doctrine of death. Accordingly, he says that over the perceptive powers of the souls of men who handle what is written in too corporeal a manner, the veil is cast; but for those who turn their contemplation to that which is the object of the intelligence, there is revealed, bared, as it were, of a mask, the glory that underlies the letter." I wonder if Gregory, and perhaps even the apostle Paul himself, could join the conversation on the corporeal reading of words vs the contemplative reading of words, and how the latter brings life to the soul and arouses the conscience, while the former simply muzzles it.

[@anselman3156]

Could it be that St Paul was saying that it is only as Christ is encountered in the words that, instead of bringing death by their conviction of sin, they bring life by their revelation of the Savior, and promoting trust in Him. The vail is done away in Christ (verse 14). The Lord Jesus said that the Scriptures testified of Him. Those who had faith in God in Old Testament times had some intimation of Christ given to them, whereas those who did not have faith only read the Scriptures without spiritual understanding. Not finding hope in the promised Savior, they read only the condemnation of their inability to be perfect and pleasing to God.Just a thought.

[@zeb358]

In Heidegger, we are not encountering things as present in our mind. By most part we encounter things by taking them for granted by relying on them. For e.g. the floor that you work on is not something you have to actively think about. Its only when something has gone wrong about the floor (its uneven or there's a pot hole into which you walk in to) that you become vividly aware of that floor. So there is something about the things in the world that are ordinarily invisible to us . Otherwise, if everything was nothing but their visibility then nothing would ever surprise/shock us. It can be said that objects are deeper than any understanding we have of them either through praxis or concept. In other words, there is always a gap between what we know about an object and what its essence might be. This latter point is an aspect in Kant's philosophy. So that objects are deeper than the mere relationship between me and the interaction I have with the object. My understanding of an object can only be partially translatable. In post modern thought it is popular to assume everything is interlinked ("Holism") which moves away from the traditional idea of independence. Technology/science strips the mystery of things and reduces it to a calculable stock pile. Art/poetry/mythology on the other hand points to the being of things that are withdrawn from us in the way that it has non-conceptual access to the "real". Going all the way back to Socrates who claimed that the philosophical endeavour is not to gain absolute knowledge of the world. This is for the gods. So for us mere mortals the best we can have is not wisdom but the love of wisdom or approaching it in by indirect reference is the best we can do. This is why the arts/mythology have a more important place in cognition (as John Vervaeke rightly espouses) than in the analytical philosophical domain which still tends to hero worship the sciences. An object can't just be reduced to its bundle of qualities. There is always going to be something more there than we are able to explain, which cannot be satisfactorily summarised to its list of properties. Science falls into this illusion. Being is so deep that it cannot have an effect on us. In Hediegger, Being is just there and is itself and doesn't really interact with us. Heidegger says God needs us in order to reveal itself. We at the surface of existence become necessary in order for Being at the deeper level to reveal itself to us. Likewise, objects in the world only interact with each other at the surface and cannot have direct contact at the deeper level. In Object Oriented Philosophy, things only can interact on the surface because their depths are so deep that they can never directly touch each other, like the rain drops falling on the roof of a house cannot grasp the entirety of the house.

[@malpais776]

Thank you for this clear paragraph on Heidegger's view of our perceptual limitations and possibilities. I'm interested in how Vervaeke is going to present Heidegger in the context of his ( Vervaeke's ) project.

[@fargothbosmer2059]

Paul this is one of the best videos on KZbin. Your unique compilation/ commentary format compliments and expounds upon the each of the clips wonderfully

[@MHAFOOTBALL]

God bless you, Paul.

[@AndyJarman]

Paul I haven't watched you for three months. It took me a good half hour of watching to get up to speed so I could even begin to understand what on earth your were talking about! And then my understanding started flickering. It's no good I can see I'm going to have to watch this over and over. Fear not though I SHALL master it!! Great material, love the ride!

[@annawray2220]

Life is strange as soon as you mentioned Malcom Guite it rang a bell, I looked him up and yes I know one of his band members he lives in my home town of Cambridge, seen him sing a few times, small world, no idea he’s been making videos!!

[@neilkaethler7775]

Paul, you might enjoy Owen Barfield's book, 'Worlds Apart A Dialogue of the 1960's'. In this book, he imagines a dialogue between physicists, biologist, psychiatrist, theologian's and others as they grapple with the meaning crisis, and grapple with their varying viewpoints. This seems to be very much in the same spirit of your videos, which I enjoy immensely.

[@christopherk222]

1:04:57 On this, see also Aristotle's Revenge: the Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science / Edward Feser. . .

[@TheDrb27]

Such a great video. Thank you for your time and thought you put into this.

[@christopherk222]

57:15 For Aristotle, I think the distinction is between telos (end / purpose) vs. techne (method involved to accomplish goal / objective). . .

[@freddyruto3139]

I'm very interested in what you said about physicality in 1:35:01 , you should expand that thought. It'd be a great video. Also the story by Guite about the chemistry class he had really resonated with me. It finally made sense to me how world views are transmitted and how they orient our 'elephants.' Powerful stuff as always Paul.

[@aqualityexistence4842]

I loved this. Thanks, Paul!

[@fedler89]

Thank you for this one Paul! We surely live in an exciting period of history!

[@gabrielsyme4180]

The T.S. Eliot quote is from “The Rock”. Think I’ve brought the poem up, if not also that exact quote, here before. The whole poem is an ESSENTIAL read. Also, this is one of your best videos as of recent!!!

[@anselman3156]

I agree. A must read.

[@telleroftales5309]

Such a brilliant conversation. I have some Barfield in the post and I can't wait to read it. Thanks for this enlivening discussion

[@christopherk222]

20:48 Maybe ! 😄 I don't think this represents Aristotle's teaching / writings. . .

[@christopherk222]

1:01:41 . . ."random" is also just another word for "chance". . . (yes, as in Chance or the Dance). . .

[@christopherk222]

1:16:34 As human beings, we also have "outer" and "inner" - body and soul. . . Origen says we also have, as a result, "outer senses" and "inner senses". . .

[@ivannegri7724]

I think the connection between Barfield and Vervaeke is fascinating, so Owen is positing a psychotechnology based upon a perspectival shift in conciousness that is triggered by poetry. The flaw in his system is that it is a chaotic trigger, meaning it has the disruptive potential that is constitutive of a psyhcotechnology, but it dosen't have a intelligible operational schema, meaning you just sorta read some stuff, and maybe it works, and maybe it dosen't, so not to be overly critical, if you compare his approach to Communion you can see where it falls flat, Communion is a codified system of eliciting a shift in conciousness, and it is consistent, meaning if you wire your brain to appreciate the sacrodotal(sp) nature of Communion than you get a consistent effect every time you engage in it. I feel like an intellectual light weight amongst giants, but that is a good feeling. Thank you for your time and attention.

[@rosafalls8068]

I'm leaving a comment here, to remind you that you made this, since you make so many. And The Anadromist has an upcoming related series. But most of all I want to say this was really amazing in relation to where we are now and how to attempt to bring things back together. I feel much more whole after this.

[@christopherk222]

5:57 Chance or the Dance ? / Thomas Howard ! (See interview with Eric Metaxas)

[@marykochan8962]

Yes Oh, indeed. Great stuff.

[@PaulVanderKlay]

wordpress.com/post/paulvanderklay.me/43811

[@christopherk222]

@@PaulVanderKlay 🤔. . . Says I have to log in. . .

[@christopherk222]

1:31:57 We've "dissected" - which can only be done to something that's dead. . .

[@kiljoy5223]

“I don't know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Isaac Newton

[@christopherk222]

44:28 Also, we should pay attention to "constraints". . . Who (or what) is constraining, and why ?

[@WhiteStoneName]

26:41 "The world does not possess these things (the secondary properties). That is what the mind willfully imposes upon reality." Dualism.

[@C.M.Sivelle]

This was great thank you for making these

[@christopherk222]

1:18:16 🤔. . . This seems (to me) a fairly vague use of the word "glory". . . seems similar to Vervaeke's use of flow / peak experience. . .

[@TheMeaningCode]

Oh, I love that you mentioned James Tour!

[@christopherk222]

25:14 🤔. . . "mindlessly" . . .as opposed to "intentionally / purposefully" -- whether by reason or instinct? Right there: Chance or the Dance !

[@garrettbryan2717]

The reason Barfield could write about this is because G.K. Chesterton predicted this as he engaged in debates with open atheists like H.G. Wells. This fight was old by the time Saving the Appearance was written. Barfield’s contribution is that he added a sort of “evolution of the real” idea in his alpha vs. beta thinking.

[@twr0b]

Dang, I did a message about taking a bite of the best chocolate cake and letting out a prayer that should reach God but stops at the baker. God put all these things in place for his glory. We pray continuously but stop short continuously.

[@Sandy-be8wq]

So, this just might explain my word/language hang-ups then lol. Also, I never saw math as a language but a rhythm of cycles growing up. 2 of my hours well spent thank you Paul, have a great day!

[@christopherk222]

59:34 As analysis, postmodernism also came to the conclusion that we are at the "end". . . of modernism.

[@christopherk222]

1:16:48 As per Peterson, they're selling stories. . . that help give understanding / meaning to our lives. . .

[@christopherk222]

1:07:13 Could this also be said, in reference to the "literal" and "spiritual" meanings of Scripture ?

[@christopherk222]

1:19:27 This is the poetic version of the Heisenberg Principle. . .

[@jasonaus3551]

Paul I have a recommendation for your first book to publish. I think you should go through and collect your essays and articles and blogs you have post over the years around these themes you have been covering on you channel and through your life??? I love reading collections of essays of philosophers and theologian

[@christopherk222]

35:30 This is "backing into" Plato and the Forms, esp. the trancendenals: the Good, the True, and the Beautiful - and their unity: the One. . . these are the "qualities" of Being (ontology / philosophy). . .

[@christopherk222]

1:58:03 BOTH Descartes and Kant !

[@WhiteStoneName]

Who in this comment thread has read Lewis's Space trilogy & would like to talk to me about how a lot of the content of this video relates to Merlin in That Hideous Strength? :)

[@TheMeaningCode]

“There must be an observer”. I would be interested in hearing the comments of any quantum physicist who are reading this as to whether or not there is a connection between Paul’s comment and all of the research that has been done on the effect of the observer on the particle.

[@christopherk222]

1:12:28 We seem to have lost the poetic (Frye ! ), the metaphorical, the analogy, that used to be "natural" to human thinking and discourse. . .

[@thenowchurch6419]

Since we did away with God and the soul, what purpose can poetry have?

[@christopherk222]

22:39 I think this would be a more accurate representation of Aristotle: every living being has a soul / consciousness and is "purpose -seeking" (telelogical). . .

[@paulhermann]

this was excellent. thank u.

[@christopherk222]

1:59:16 DEEP dive ! 😀 Great !

[@brianbob7514]

30:22 “who’s the you!!!!” I felt the same way when listening to this. Materialists trying to call on moral actions all sound funny to me now.

[@robb7855]

Very interesting and helpful Paul. Thank you.

[@christopherk222]

31:29 Yes, a "robot story" in which the "programmer" is never discussed !

[@charlespacker7544]

Another great presentation, Rev Paul. One thing that really grabbed me. Weinstein’s base-pair spelling bee that ends in genocide overlooks that human males are probably the only adult male primates (perhaps male mammals) that will specifically sacrifice their life and their opportunity to propagate their genetic spellings for the benefit of another adult male. Human males have done this to protect their tribe/nation reaching back into human pre history, and this continues onto the modern battlefield and other contexts. Perhaps this is what discriminates humans from all other life, that our species is capable of a higher value than propagation of our genetic spellings. Our species teleology is different. (Made in the image of God???)The most prolific narrative in human history tells of an adult male who gave His life for all other adult males (and women and children), giving up His life and his opportunity for genetic propagation, but through this sacrifice became the most influential human in history. (He who will lose his life shall gain it?)

[@Orthodoxi]

My studies Indicate that the loss of meaning is caused by increased “manipulation” of the world while simultaneously decreasing our spiritual development. The two are joined at the hip. That is why bringing God back to reign in our social fabric again is the only way to regain meaning and also with the concurrent crisis in science, or “knowledge”, we can also expect a collective rebirth in the sciences.

[@lauragiles4245]

The conversation just keeps getting better. Isn't it amusing that the man who is the Barfield expert sorta look like a hobbit? Or is my Inkling just misdirected?

[@christopherk222]

57:40 Socrates was the teacher of Plato. . . Plato was the teacher of Aristotle. . .

[@WhiteStoneName]

"Alone in the Mass (mass)." again seems appropriate. Just atoms (or people or billiard balls) just mindlessly smacking each other around. Reminds me again of one of my favorite quotes: "Probabilities are the prophets of a mechanical God." -N.D. Wilson

[@job8994]

Looked up Barfield. Sad to see he's no longer with us.

[@job8994]

In hindsight this should have been obvious 😶

[@WhiteStoneName]

@@job8994 I think he was the most long-lived of the Inklings though. I can't remember. He outlived Lewis, as he was the executor or keeper of his estate. (or something like that)

[@poesiforankor6349]

The antics said objects wants things, we still say that they obeys laws. Same sillyness, ain't it? We have to go back though, imo, the universe lives.

[@anselman3156]

Tremble if you must, for the dust is still breathing, and the trees are just the leaves on a big breathing globe, and there's life in the rocks, and the sea shells are listening to the sound of the sand as it rests on its way-Paul Potash. Yes the universe lives, and its life is Christ the Logos.

[@SB_McCollum]

I love Malcolm Guite!

[@leedufour]

Thanks Paul.

[@jacobklinstein]

Now I want to read Bardfeld

[@jasonaus3551]

These are great. As much as I fail to understand what a modern person means by "saved through Christ" when these same people believe a literal, historical account of Jesus (which I do not or cannot believe).

[@WhiteStoneName]

Your comment popped to me. Can you elaborate on what you mean? I'm interested. :)

[@christopherk222]

32:05 That's one hell of a story ! 🤣

[@mosesgarcia9443]

Thank. Fantastic.......

[@christopherk222]

23:38 But, in this case, YOU determine it's "proper place". . . The phone holder cannot do this: it is not a living being, and therefore has no soul / consciousness: and therefore no intention / purpose. . . Other than the one a "conscious living being" has put into it. . .

[@WhiteStoneName]

23:02 "Everything in its proper place." Purpose, plan, an observer. Sure Radiohead said this a while back. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqewop9vjcx8nZI

[@christopherk222]

1:45:29 Heisenberg !

[@bullphrogva1804]

If the intention/willingness (or faith) of a person is what gives a object it's properness, or purpose, to let an object achieve it's gestalt in it's use. For example a stool can fulfill the purpose of a chair, or a small table. A cup can fulfill the purpose of a liquid or pen holder. It takes the persons faith in the object to be able to act out a role and as the object encompasses it self into that role, it embodies the gestalt of it. Couldn't that be transferred over to Bread and Wine. It takes the person faith in the objects to fulfill the role of the flesh and blood of Christ and in acting out that role, it embodies the blood and flesh of Jesus? If a stool can achieve the gestalt of a small table though the faith of a person, then how far away is that from bread achieving the same of Jesus's flesh?

[@anselman3156]

That would not be a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or, as far as I know, Lutheran understanding of the eucharist. Do you reckon Christ is made present by the faith of the priest, rather than the words and action of consecration? Or by each individual recipient? (I think that is what is termed Receptionism).

[@WhiteStoneName]

@@anselman3156 Maybe it's the gestalt of the Body of Christ & their faith? And then that transcendent reality is something that we as persons participate in/within or not? I don't know. just throwing out some thoughts.

[@bullphrogva1804]

Maybe I could reframe it as, this is how the faith of the recipient is tested rather than this is how Christ presences becomes part of the bread and wine. I am not trying to say this is done at the expense of the consecration.

[@anselman3156]

@@WhiteStoneName The Orthodox position, as stated by St Philaret of Moscow's Catechism, is that the utterance of the words which Christ spoke in instituting the Sacrament and the invocation of the Holy Ghost changes the bread and wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ. I have not come across anything in Orthodoxy which gives a role to any individual's faith in effecting the change.

[@anselman3156]

@@bullphrogva1804 It is interesting that you speak of Christ's presence as becoming part of the bread and wine. I suppose that is the Lutheran consubstantiation, ie. it remains bread and wine but contains the Lord's Body and Blood. Shall we say that the Body and Blood need to be received by faith in order to be effectual means of grace? Curiously, I heard recently that "pope" Francis in his Corpus Christi homily made what Catholics would view as heretical statements, namely, that Jesus becomes bread, and that Christ is contained in the bread. The latter is the Lutheran position. The former is just, well false. I admit I have yet to verify his exact words. I give them as reported by a traditional priest.

[@Ritastresswood]

Paul, how do we know the world is round and rotating round the sun? The accumulation of scientific knowledge (both theoretical and empirical), from Copernicus to Columbus through technologist like John Harrison, and the rotation of the earth is demonstrated by Foucault Pendulum in the Science Museums and universities around the world. It is also demonstrated by our experience of getting on an aeroplane travelling either eastward or westward, northward or southward. Your experience of travelling to Australia and literally arrived and your jet-lag should have convinced you the world is round. That is how we know what we know. But, obviously, we do go somewhere with a purpose, albeit a business, leisure, or a home coming trip. Am I too materialistic? Or am I a physicalist with a dash of theory of accordance as described by Vervaeke.

[@WhiteStoneName]

Also, right there. ☝🏼 Guite quoting Barfield, “the more [man] is able to manipulate the world to his advantage, the less he perceives meaning in it.” 💯 That’s what I mean by Technological Babel & disembodiment! I would also argue that this is what our confessionalism has done as well. Our propositional assertions of belief (post-Enlightenment, post-Original Participation) have actually-in effect-distanced us from meaning & from actual participation in embodiment of our professions. This is what technology DOES/IS. Propositional assertion of belief is a psycho**technology**. We have been colonized by technology in our BELIEF. Final Participation may be calling us to re-embody these self-aware “beliefs”. To live them first vs profess them first. To realize that embodiment actually proceeds understanding. “The righteous will see God.”

[@robb7855]

According to the Bible, you alone cannot do works or embody anything that makes you righteous in God's view. If you could, His death, resurrection, and sending His Spirit would not be needed. But, other than that, I agree 💯.

[@WhiteStoneName]

JR Byrne no one can do anything without God. Everything that is, at its core, is a word of God. Nothing exists outside of him. I’m no deist. “In him we live and move and HAVE OUR BEING.”

[@robb7855]

@@WhiteStoneName Work sin into that framework. Is sin an action of God, or an action of man's will that goes against God (which is His will to allow). Thus, is God or man responsible (the cause) for sin? If you say God is the cause of sin, and man cannot act contradictory to God's will, God killed His people in the Holocaust and he is making me think this is wrong even if it is right. I fully agree that everything that is apart from God is contingent. But that doesnt explain what the nature of the contingent reality exhaustively is.

[@WhiteStoneName]

JR Byrne biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/45-7.htm I would say we should stop trying f to explain everything & fit it all into our mental systematic theologies. It distracts us from loving one another. God is bigger than our ideas about him. 🤷🏼‍♂️ I don’t know what “sin” is ontologically. It’s disobedience, unhealthy, brokenness, missing the mark, stumbling, etc. Let’s not do that.

[@robb7855]

@@WhiteStoneName Why? In my experience, I am much closer to Him from doing so. Which one of us is right? Or, is it just relative (no truth of the matter)? I also agree with much of Thomism so I sure have my line of mystery well defined and accepted.

[@christopherk222]

1:53:18 This is why most people de facto operate on some kind of "faith": they can't "scientifically demonstrate" what they "know". . .

[@christopherk222]

1:12:49 This gets to the loss of a "common vocabulary". . . definitions of words that we agree on. . .

[@johnstewart7025]

Reductionism -- if mind can be explained through material things then there no longer is dualism. So then, human meaning and the universe will be one or at least linked in a causal way.

[@thereturntobeing]

I can’t help but say that much of what is being discussed in your videos on Barfield reminds me of some sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas... “Jesus saw some infants who were being suckled. He said to his disciples: These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom. They said to him: If we then become children, shall we enter the kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper as the lower, and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the female not female, and when you make an eye in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter the kingdom.” - Saying 22 “His disciples said to him: On what day will the kingdom come? Jesus said:, It will not come while people watch for it; they will not say: Look, here it is, or: Look, there it is; but the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and men do not see it.” - Saying 113 I’m very thankful to have learned of Barfield from your channel. Much of what I’ve read thus far is what I have been trying to get at for years since first listening to Jordan Peterson. This insistence of mine to seek to explain something intelligible about this higher level of awareness is mostly due sudden, unexpected, ineffable and mystical encounter with the Deity who’s truth was made known to my heart through the imagery of Christ crucified. EDIT: Saying 113 is preserved in another form in the Gospel of Luke (Quoted in my first reply) and Part of saying 22 is also preserved in the early “Orthodox” Christian text, “Second Clement” along with an interpretation of its meaning which is very mystical and highly reminds me of the idea of “Full Participation” that Barfield is trying to convey. "For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female. Now the two are one, when we speak truth among ourselves, and in two bodies there shall be one soul without dissimulation. And by the outside as the inside He meaneth this: by the inside he meaneth the soul and by the outside the body.” - Second Clement 12:2-6 (Lightfoot's translation):

[@anselman3156]

There is no light in fake sayings of Jesus invented by those who misused His Name to try to corrupt Christians. The Church, thank God, was led by the Spirit to canonize the true Gospels. There is no spiritual wisdom in Gnostic gurus. They operate on an earthly, fleshly level. Flesh is fallen, fleshly vision distorted, and fleshly minds deceived and deceiving. We must seek the mind of Christ in the true Gospel..Would you like to say more concerning your encounter through the imagery of Christ crucified? Have you looked to the New Testament for some understanding of its significance?

[@anselman3156]

I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. 2 Corinthians 11. 3-4

[@thereturntobeing]

@anselman “Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."” - Luke‬ ‭17:20-21‬ ‭ “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."” - Matthew‬ ‭16:28‬ “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one IN Christ Jesus.” ‭‭- Galatians‬ ‭3:27-28‬ “And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? ...Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of Gnosis. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."” ‭‭- Luke‬ ‭11:39-40, 52‬

[@anselman3156]

@@thereturntobeing It is better that you stay with the New Testament than be influenced by the fake "Gospel of Thomas". The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, taken together is the infallible word from God.

[@thereturntobeing]

&anselman Thank you for sharing your opinion on the matter, but I am not afraid of reading ancient Christian texts outside of the biblical text. If we can consider Barfield’s work with genuine curiosity, why can we not consider sayings of Jesus possibly preserved in the Gospel of Thomas as well as other Early Christian texts? Some texts such as the Gospel of Judas should be rejected outright, for not only is it apparently ridiculous but no New Testament scholar would support a stamp of authenticity to its presentation of Jesus. However, if you are well read in the New Testament as well as the early church Fathers, you can easily discern which texts deserve our consideration and which do not. Saying 113 is preserved in another form in the Gospel of Luke (Quoted in my first reply) and Part of saying 22 is also preserved in the early “Orthodox” Christian text, Second Clement along with an interpretation of its meaning which is very mystical and highly reminds me of the idea of “Full Participation” that Barfield is trying to convey. "For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female. Now the two are one, when we speak truth among ourselves, and in two bodies there shall be one soul without dissimulation. And by the outside as the inside He meaneth this: by the inside he meaneth the soul and by the outside the body.” - Second Clement 12:2-6 (Lightfoot's translation): I recommended purchasing a copy of “The Apostolic Fathers in English, by Michael W. Holmes.” You can find it at the following link: www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers-English-Michael-Holmes/dp/0801031087

[@christopherk222]

58:32 🤔 Well. . . the culture was fundamentally opposed to Socrates and his ideas. . . as Plato writes, that's why Socrates was told to leave told to leave or take hemlock. . .

[@estheroreilly3143]

I enjoyed Vervaeke's commentary on Descartes (my boy!) even though he ends up making the same common blunder other philosophers have made with dualism, which is to treat "the interaction problem" as though it *is* a problem and not a manufactured worry. Vervaeke's conclusions about the bleak place where Cartesian dualism left us are predicated on several false leaps of logic, including the false leap that Cartesian certainty is a necessary condition for true, justified belief in a modernist frame. It's true that I can only be 100% certain about a very few things at this moment in time. It doesn't follow that I'm epistemologically doomed to float in the terrifying vastness of Pascalian spaces with nothing but my isolated moment to moment consciousness to cling to. That's an extremely narrow view of epistemology.

[@robb7855]

Well said. Although, Aquinas (my boi), has a more coherent and Biblical conception of mind, body and soul. 😛 Pineal gland? No wonder people assert an "interaction problem".

[@estheroreilly3143]

@@robb7855 Just because Descartes threw some silly things out there when he opened his mouth to think side thoughts out loud doesn't mean his core idea wasn't fundamentally right. ;-)

[@robb7855]

​@@estheroreilly3143Do you know if your boi drew on Aquinas? And which ideas that influenced? I wonder why some people think Aquinas's soul (whole person) supports dual aspect idealists and some think he supports (at least) two substances. Maybe he is just inarticulate, or interpretation of complex ideas is hard? I guess it gets back to the question of what is fundamentally right. What evidence is there for matter existing (as commonly defined)? I experience "matter", therefore it is? 😛

[@estheroreilly3143]

@@robb7855 Ah, the old problem of the external world. I have a paper solving that somewhere. :-D

[@estheroreilly3143]

I do know that the Thomistic hylomorphist conception of dualism isn't the same as classic substance dualism. I think the debate may partly spring from a caricatured idea of what substance dualism is.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Until consciousness is understood as fundamental, with mind; elemental, emerging with quantum events, materialism, unfortunately, will likely prevail especially amongst scientists who see reality having to correspond to material facts as needing a material substance to exist.

[@anselman3156]

The universe is in every moment maintained in existence by the divine Person of the Son (Hebrews 1.3), and we are exhorted to have His mind in us (Philippians 2.5, 1 Corinthians 2.16). True Christ consciousness, the right outlook on everything, comes through faith in that Person and is informed by Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit. His Spirit seeks to guide the consciousness of human beings, but allows for their resistance to truth (Genesis 6.3). As for wind/spirit, some of my paltry attempts at poetry record experience of the presence and restorative power of God in the wind.

[@robb7855]

Scientific ontology? How is that not a category error of epistemology with ontology? You cannot do science in a vacuum free from consciousness and your philosophy that shapes your world-view. I also say I have a scientific world-view, which is coherent and necessarily dependent on God.

[@thenowchurch6419]

Amen.

[@christopherk222]

21:56 🤔. . . Again, I don't think so !

[@johnstewart7025]

Evidently those who don't feel meaning in their lives don't identify with the scientific age and its accomplishments. There certainly seemed to be times in the 20th century when confidence in science seemed to be strong.

[@christopherk222]

20:23 . . .or, for Christian philosophers, "God's consciousness" and intention: "Divine Providence".

[@christopherk222]

1:37:22 . . .and the assumption that these are merely human documents.

[@johnstewart7025]

I think there are philosophers who say that we are in the world and that is how we need to understand life. It is the only perspective that is meaningful -- so it isn't the God's eye view or the science perspective. The world appears to us in the ways that it is useful to us. We notice the things we can use, and little else. Of course, some people are more sensitive to nature, for instance, than the average.

[@anselman3156]

The Bible indicates the possibility of having the mind of Christ and some perception of heavenly things, so as to rightly order our life in this world toward our supernatural end.

[@christopherk222]

1:52:43 People still speak "phenomenologically", as in the Bible, not as scientists do. . .

[@christopherk222]

1:55:05 This is why modernism has reached a dead end. . .

[@MortenBendiksen]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Doesn't that suggest that neither of these two have primacy over the other? Are they two sides of the same coin, with each being necessary for the other? Could it be that just like we humans are matter and spirit, and we can never seem to figure out which is primary, so is also the universe constructed?

[@no-one-knows321]

How is all this thinking going to filter down to ordinary people? How do you teach this to your children?

[@marykochan8962]

You don't really have to teach this to your children. You jest have to not teach your children the modernist garbage. Immerse them in a bunch of good books and have them read them under trees, make sure they handle animals and plants, do not introduce them to the scientific method until 12th grade very briefly so they can pass a few tests, and they will be just fine.

[@WhiteStoneName]

Mary Kochan Could not agree more. You don’t have to understand (in modernist categories) in order to “understand” & participate (in Final Participation? categories). That’s Abrahamic knowing. That’s why Christianity is not an elitist religion for the erudite intellectuals. It’s for lovers. It’s for those who obey & love Christ.

[@no-one-knows321]

@@marykochan8962 Ah, the simple beauty of the gospel msg(and deep mysteries). Irreplaceable.

[@lauragiles4245]

Still awaiting the Frank Schaffer-dedicated discussion? A lot of teasers . . . .

[@mattspintosmith5285]

So here's a thing, Paul. None other than Sam Harris' wife, Annaka, writing a book seemingly suggesting we need to give panpsychism a more serious look. Sam interviews his wife on a podcast this month. Whither now the great New Atheist project?: podcastnotes.org/2019/06/10/annaka-harris/

[@PaulVanderKlay]

I'm not promoting pan-psychism. I had a conversation this week with a graduate student in philosophy who was promoting it to me contrast to Vervaeke's physicalism. If he agrees to release the video it will come to the channel eventually. Super nice smart young man. I don't know that saying that everything has "consciousness" is all that intelligible either. What does the consciousness of hydrogen mean? I have no idea how to grasp that.

[@mattspintosmith5285]

My main intended point was that there seems to be a healthy dialogue going on in the Harris household which augurs well. You rightly keep bringing the subject back to the meaning crisis. Keep bringing it back! :-)

[@robb7855]

Consciousness ---> Biology or Biology ---> Consciousness or Both?!? Lol Ummmm. Biology was certainly not always around. So, are we granting non-organic things possibly containing consciousness? That is the only way you could have consciousness and stuff always being, evolving and one of them not begetting the other.

[@WhiteStoneName]

JR Byrne Rupert Sheldrake. He also has a podcast w Mark Vernon entitled “Is the Sun Conscious” m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4vdaWaAedutrsU

[@marykochan8962]

@@WhiteStoneName then there's Hildegard Von bingen. In her vision of reality, nothing is without consciousness.

[@MHAFOOTBALL]

Consciousness--> Biology would have been the answer from Jung and Jean Gebser. Gebser wrote A book called The Ever Present Origin that is a deep dive into the mutations of consciousness.

[@robb7855]

​@@MHAFOOTBALL Thank you. I'm putting that on my reading list. It sounds like it is right up my alley.

[@robb7855]

@@WhiteStoneNameI've listened to that before, it is an interesting philosophical debate. But, all space, time and matter once didn't exist. So, as Rupert Sheldrake affirms, the Necessary, Conscious, Immaterial Being came before and caused space, time and matter (and little, contingent consciousnesses).

[@1960taylor]

Why the constant stops for explanation? Do you think you are speaking to idiots? Annoying as hell.

[@PaulVanderKlay]

The links to the originals are in the notes.