Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry by Owen Barfield - Book Chat

[@Then.]

Hi. Thanks for the talk! I love this book and have struggled with it on multiple slow reads. I wanted to offer a bit of a different take in the idea of the unrepresented vs the represented. By my understanding of the book even the particles of water that reflect to us a rainbow image are still represented because they are in our mind’s model of explanation of the phenomenon. If we can imagine it or explain it, it is a representation. We all know that a rainbow isn’t out over there, but we collectively represent to our minds that raindrops and sunlight are over there and the phenomena they produce. The same is true for all matter. We think there are trees there but we know/represent that trees are “really” particles independent of us that we are perceiving. Barfield’s argument was that reality itself isn’t out there for us to perceive but is a process of individually and collectively representing phenomena from fields of potential. He argues that we can deliberately participate in this process and therefore deliberately co-create reality itself.

[@WhiteStoneName]

Hells yes. Well said. Also, if you understand Barfield this well, I'd be interested in talking to you. I've been obsessed with Barfield since reading that book (or most of it). It's right in line with where my head is most days (when I'm not tied down with practical things).

[@PromoMIAR]

Whatever about sight and sound and smell and taste, I'm struggling with the idea of "touch". We might all percieve most of these "Appearances" in a slightly subjective way (and also some version of objectivity in a collective representational sense) but no matter what concious being we are talking about, nobody or nothing can walk through walls. Supposing tonight, Earth is hit with an Asteroid and all living creatures are gone. What actually then is an unseen, unheard, unsmelled and untasted "Rock" ? (My head hurts trying to grasp Idealism/Barefield's book.) Welcome any thoughs...

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@Owen_Barfield]

Thank you for taking this on. Well done.

[@mayhem492]

Thank’s a lot, embarking on a tentative investigation of Barfield, his work and theories, fascinating but daunting.These type of brief synopses are so very helpful!

[@grailarts]

Thank you for the Barfield chat!

[@Triplesteeple]

Nice.

[@QuixEnd]

This books fits really well alongside Chris Langans CTMU book. Two wildly different starting points reaching similar ends. Idk much about science, but the CTMU is more of an ontology than scientific outline. I found it quite beautiful and complete *.. i may be on a different wavelength with this one.. been a while since i read it

[@msha6200]

🎉❤