Immaterialism 2

First topic message reminder :

[The original topic reminder post https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t320-immaterialism  
should be substituted here... ]
............



(cont......)

If you want to learn to stand on the shoulders of giants...

Ask a goat.

There is an art to it and trust me, muppets are retarded and have forgotten how.

Who was the first goat

Owens dares us to end our exploitation of the natural world and to acknowledge, even revel in, our participation in the diurnal creative process.

I’m at conference today and enjoying this OMF sparring.

You argue with a Daimon, goodluck with that.

Sorry if I hit you too hard, you can take it, we can take a lot.

The cross thread from the conference...

“Master working with constraints.”

Conceptions are constraints, how to free up capacity and learn to run many jobs at once?!

Cubbyholes store data that can only be accessed with one time keys.

These are hidden in the Vault.

These secrets connect everything.

Guess what your life and DNA are, a one time token.

You can’t change the problems, which we have none of.

Can we build what we need to build with tools?

History has provided us tools.

Amazing tools actually, mental and material.

What makes you think I am arguing ?

I have nothing to defend or argue.

I am the sultan of swing.



My only tool is my guitar.

You should get one.

Oh wait...you are my guitar.

Use tools you are given mercilessly.

Keep a layer between them, an air gap, or else.

Seriously understand your self and limits in matter and motivations and how your mind can be fooled.

If you don’t look to history for the tools, you won’t know what to do.

You will end up reinventing tools already available, writing maps already written.

Reuse what you find, look everywhere.

Turn problems into opportunities.

You are not the tools you make your life with.

Of course I am the tools I make my life with.

You are one confused muppet.

Must have been all that time you spent with the Princess.

Good to see you at least trying to think for yourself.

Practice practice practice.

Am I confused Smelly?

Aaron, I don’t think you and I have anything else to talk about really, do we?!

Don't know.

Don’t think so

Have fun.

“You can’t cross the sea merely by standing and staring at the water.”

When crossing the sea, watch out for sharks.

Surfing is fun.

Stay in the pipe and you will be fine.

This goat has his sea legs.

Surfs up Dude

Eric, I would say that you are being a bully toward Ackbar, just now.  

I wonder if we could dial back the rhetoric a bit, please.  

I was was being more than a little provocative.  I apologize.  

There are some issues about personalism that cannot be swept under the rug, however.  We might attempt to address those, in a more collegial fashion, if that is not asking too much of our feisty selves.  
........

Ok, things are slowing down, hopefully.........


(cont......)

Smelly is such a meanie big builie sometimes.

I learned from you Dan.

How’s my style?

The sloth can take it.

I started with Barfield.

I’m not done with him or Coleridge yet at all yet

Seminal identity.

Perhaps Dan, you should avoid claiming any provenance in regards to Jesus, just a suggestion.

I have accepted he is an archetype, so I’m not budging on that until I see the holes.

Barfield and Blake see Christ as seminal identity living in the imagination.

That’s where I am at.

Thank you, smelly....... yes, you can be a meanie.......

Owen seems to be someone whom we all respect.  

Let’s try to refocus, if we may.........
..........

Owen happens to be a Christian, as we know.

My question is whether that fact is accidental or essential to his philosophical views, as outlined in Saving the Appearances?



(cont........)

We were fine Dan until you started up with the Jesus bit, just sayin.

I was trying to talk about polarity.

This seems very key to understand.

I admit fault in trying to drag Aliyah into the brawl.  

I am not quite ready to apologize for Jesus, though.  

Will the ontology of polarity help us to understand the Jesus problem?

Please, go ahead, smelly, and enlighten us about polarity........
..........

There are many aspects to polarity. I would hesitate to guess what smelly’s perspective might be.

Is polarity not similar to duality? I believe that one of the prevalent dualities is gender, but that observation might just drag us back into politics. Obviously, there is a gender spectrum, but certainly there is also polarity.



(cont......)

“It is not accidental, then, that whereas the ancient world thinks of the poet as “inspired,” the modern world thinks of the same poet as “imaginative”; the first is to be “possessed by” a genius or daemon without; the second (as Coleridgean poetics would propose) is rather to be “in possession of” the daemon within. Hence the relation, historically speaking, between “inspiration” and “imagination” is that of a true polarity or “seminal identity.”

So let's consider Coleridge's "seminal identity."

"In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

"--in ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum. As the Cambridge Platonists said, Reason is the candle of the Lord, our participation in the Word; and the Word, as Barfield has said, is the cosmic process on its way from original (unconscious) to final (conscious) participation in God. The religious position, again, is not a new one--in fact, it may well be the oldest Christian one--but the point is that Barfield has arrived at it by romantic means and that he defends it by romantic means, the doctrine of the creative imagination."

“A true understanding of the principle of polarity in Owen Barfield is perhaps the ultimate prerequisite to a genuine understanding of all the major facets of his thought, including the evolution of consciousness. It is generally not known that Coleridge was the first person to use the word “polarity” to mean something other than magnetism, and Barfield’s 1971 study of Coleridge is essentially the study of polarity and its ramifications throughout Coleridge’s thought: for example, the well known conception by Coleridge of the literary imagination as “the reconciliation of opposites” really derives from his non-literary work in natural philosophy and his contention there of polarity as the exponential law governing individuation, a conception found later in Karl Jung as well as among Coleridge’s own contemporaries in Germany. But Barfield himself has greatly extended Coleridgean polarity in his own thought.

One of the better places to encounter it is in this passage from his book Speaker’s Meaning. “A polarity of contraries,” he writes, “is not quite the same as the coincidentia oppositorum, which has been stressed by some philosophers, or as the’paradox’ which (whether for the purposes of irony or for other reasons) is beloved by some contemporary writers and critics. A paradox is the violent union of two opposites that simply contradict each other, so that reason assures us we can have one or the other but not both at the same time. Whereas polar contraries (as is illustrated by the use of the term in electrcity) exist by virtue of each other as well as at each other’s expense. For that very reason the concept of polarity cannot be subsumed under the logical principle of identity; in fact, it is not really a logical concept at all, but one which requires an act of imagination to grasp it. . . . Unlike the logical principles of identity and contradiction, it is not only a form of thought, but also the form of life. It could perhaps be called the principle of seminal identity. It is also the formal principle which underlies meaning itself and the expansion of meaning.”

You can have your cake and eat it too.

I saw a correspondence with my Jung studies on archetypes.

And Hermetics and Alchemy.

Thoughts?

Reactions?

EG

Wow… quite a day of discussion. I was wondering if this pic below sent to me this morning from a colleague was just for a laugh or if a synchronicity was in play. I now see the latter has made its appearance. I definitely don’t know for sure, but it’ll feel like winning tonight’s mega millions if this provides the path to resolution of the current dispute between our messiah and our antichrist.

smelly,

As a former physics person, I should hasten to mention the concept of complementarity, as witnessed particularly in the quantum arena.  


cw,

That is an important sign, and I will certainly have to face up it.  Thank you.  
...........


From google.......

Furthermore, a participating relationship between subject and object, between percipient and phenomena, is ultimately for Barfield a polar one; and there is no time in the evolution of Western consciousness when human perception has not been in fact a participating, polar agency.

(cont......)