Direct Participation and Final Participation

[Lou Gold]

Very interesting video...

https://vimeo.com/311714692

“In the mountains, to think means to feel pain. Once you think, the training becomes hard and cold. You must leave your body to the mountain.  By entrusting, such feelings won’t occur.… half of me is here and half is somewhere else. Both is me.”

[Scott Roberts]

For the record, Barfield's term is "original participation", not "direct participation". And I think that, once made conscious, it is final participation that would be more direct. We would feel the spirit of nature within ourselves, while original participators perceived spirit "on the other side" of nature from themselves.

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Well put, Scott! I agree with your Barfieldianisms :) 

[Lou Gold]

Great clarification, Scott. Thanks. I can alter the language. 

Not having read Barfield, I don't see how it is known exactly how earlier people (original participators) perceived spirit or how "original participators" are defined. Is a remnant Bushman hunter-gatherer in the 20th Century an original participator or only long-ago people?  Did the original participators have direct participation or not, according to Barfiend? 

[Scott Roberts]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:38:47 AM UTC-10, Lou Gold wrote:

Not having read Barfield, I don't see how it known exactly how earlier people (original participators) perceived spirit

From what you have said of experiences communing with plants, I'd say you have a much better idea than I do of what it is like. One can infer that there was original participation from literary, artistic, linguistic, and anthropological evidence.

 

or how "original participators" are defined.

Participation with nature is extra-sensory experience of natural objects. Original participation is having this experience come from outside through the sensorily-perceived object to the experiencer. Hence a culture of gods and nature spirits. With final participation this extra-sensory experience lies in our subconscious (if it weren't there we wouldn't be perceiving natural objects at all, just a "blooming, buzzing confusion"). So if it becomes conscious, we would be experiencing the spirit in nature within ourselves.

 

Is a remnant Bushman hunter-gatherer in the 20th Century an original participator or only long-ago people?

Hard for me to say. If their relations with nature spirits is actively felt, then original, but it could be that it has died out, and only kept alive as traditional ritual.

 

  Did the original participators have direct participation or not, according to Barfiend? 

 "Direct participation" is your term, not Barfield's, so I couldn't say. What do you mean by it?

[Lou Gold]

OK, I see how I've introduced a confusion with the term "direct participation' and I suspect that I'll like "original participation" better.

I'm very curious as to what kind of reports Barfield relied on for his view of the consciousness of earlier people. Do you know?

[Lou Gold]

The reason I ask is that Jeremy Narby has provided a marvelous critique of anthropology's view of the "shaman" -- how it has changed across time and even disappeared in the more material-deterministic anthro departments. Basically, Narby asserted that the anthropologists have projected their own preconceptions onto the topic of shamanism. Perhaps, similar happen with views of earlier peoples or "original participators"?

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Lou, Barfield believed that our experience of words is a direct encounter with spirit. From there, he believed that we could get nearly direct insight into how consciousness has evolved over time by paying close attention to how the meaning of words change. So, while it isn't true to say he is directly experiencing former states of consciousness, it also probably isn't true to say he is making inferences *about*. One of the many joys of reading Barfield is noticing how one's own experiences of the world and language change. Have to run! 

jf

[Scott Roberts]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 2:40:12 PM UTC-10, Lou Gold wrote:

The reason I ask is that Jeremy Narby has provided a marvelous critique of anthropology's view of the "shaman" -- how it has changed across time and even disappeared in the more material-deterministic anthro departments. Basically, Narby asserted that the anthropologists have projected their own preconceptions onto the topic of shamanism. Perhaps, similar happen with views of earlier peoples or "original participators"?

He mentions Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl, but I don't know how close his interpretation is to theirs. In any case, you can be sure he doesn't view any data through a materialist lens. And as Jeff says, his main evidence for how consciousness has evolved is in language change. 

[Lou Gold]

Jeff and Scott,

Have you read " The Spell of the Sensuous" by David Abram?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48582.The_Spell_of_the_Sensuous

[Lou Gold]

Jeff,

I just ordered OW's "History of English Words", which is his only title available for kindle.

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Lou,

I love The Spell of the Sensuous, very much.  For me it is a great example of the kind of writing and experience that represents the first pushings of final participation. A beautiful book.

History In English Words is good. But it is an early book in which he doesn't spell out his entire picture.  That said, it is fascinating and you will see how carefully he attends to the qualities of word meaning. If you ever find a cheap copy of Saving The Appearences, you'll get his most explicit comments on original and final participation. Another little book is called Speaker's Meaning. But History In English Words does provide the essential building blocks of his approach. 

jf

[Lou Gold]

Scott,

The reason I ask is that Jeremy Narby has provided a marvelous critique of anthropology's view of the "shaman" -- how it has changed across time and even disappeared in the more material-deterministic anthro departments. Basically, Narby asserted that the anthropologists have projected their own preconceptions onto the topic of shamanism. Perhaps, similar happen with views of earlier peoples or "original participators"?

He mentions Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl, but I don't know how close his interpretation is to theirs. In any case, you can be sure he doesn't view any data through a materialist lens. And as Jeff says, his main evidence for how consciousness has evolved is in language change. 

I'm not sure but I may have conflated Barfield and Jaspers around the notion of "original participation" because I'm pretty resistant to the notion that hunter-gatherers were somehow less conscious than civilized folk. Surely, they were less separated from nature, which may be why I fashioned them as "direct participants."  I do know that language plays a role in facilitating separation from nature. David Abram focused on the way the Hebrew alphabetic language set the stage for abstract separations in his "The Spell of the Sensuous."

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Lou, I must admit that I do think you'll have trouble with  the very notion of an evolution of consciousness. It might be very difficult to get the implication of 'better' out of your mind as you read descriptions of systematic changes that rely on the previous foundation. 

I have the same issues. But I haven't been able to ignore what seems like very good evidence. Fortunately, over time, I've come to see that there is no inherent claim at all of 'better.' 

One small example: We can read rich descriptions of what the world and the self 'felt' like before a child was capable of, let's say, multiplication. Then we can read rich descriptions of how that shifts as the brain changes and opens up to such capacities. Those are very very diffierent and amazing, and can be seen in all cultures, even if mathematics aren't pushed. And, then, we can go on and see how these are all distinct from the kinds of states that come later if a person begins to do something like post-egoic work or enters into communities that encourage this. 

Growing, to me, does not imply improving. It implies a kind of wholeness that is in a state of 'becoming' through time. Each period of development having treasures and challenges, each new stage losing important gifts from the earlier and needing to integrate them in new and creative ways. 

The Spell of The Sensuous is a great example of what you'll never find  in an 'original participation' context, but, just as true, our modern Idolatry will be resistant to such experiences because they are attempting to grow forward in a way that reintegrates qualitative knowing. 

[Lou Gold]

Jeff (and Scott),

Nice framing for the issue.

Yup, I'm often skeptical of the developmental model. I felt this "rub" years ago with Ken Wilber, when Shamanic consciousness was placed in a somewhat lower developmental location. I feel it with Scott when I say I can't explain mumorphism to a child and he responds that I will have to wait for the child to grow up or when it is asserted that a child is an incomplete adult. Perhaps, Scott intends no judgement and is simply discriminating about how things work at different stages but I really feel an embedded progressive assumption and its attendant judgements.

The Spell of The Sensuous is a great example of what you'll never find  in an 'original participation' context, but, just as true, our modern Idolatry will be resistant to such experiences because they are attempting to grow forward in a way that reintegrates qualitative knowing. 

OK. Here I am in my "after the fall" modern state feeling thrilled with the work of Abram. I can see my "being thrilled" as an expression of needs generated by my own separation and search for healing AND I can see the glory of a shaman acting without any need for the likes of Abram. Thus, I end up asserting a both/and rather than an either/or view.  Perhaps, The Spell of The Sensuous is both a progress and an expression of the fall.

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

So, yes, we be wary :) But we also notice what's there. I think all signs point to a becoming of consciousness that begins fully absorbed and distends before having the chance to integrate. 

And, yes, traditional cultures and modern developmentalists can add some fairly horrible ideas to natural development. 

[Lou Gold]

Jeff,

Perhaps it's my crazy sense of "connecting things" but I feel a similar tension when I juxtapose Dissociated Identity Disorder with Divinely Integrated Diversity and I say, "OK. It's both/and." Then I suggest that perhaps "Great Mysteriousness" covers both/and and I'm told that I'm creating a "muddle." But maybe life is something we muddle through doing our work as best as we can. But that challenges the fundamentalist notions of ontology. I can go on and on with this but I think you can get my drift.

Right now I'm tending away from "is it mystery or muddle or model" toward "whatever it is, how shall I (we) participate?

And, I'm really liking the way a bunch of recent conversation threads seem to be weaving or worming around similar concerns.

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Yep. I can see why people would resonate with very many different kinds of terms. 

[Lou Gold]

Jeff,

The problem in my view occurs when growing up is associated with disenchantment of the world.

Becca Tarnas deals with it marvelously between 30:00 and 37:00 minutes of her dissertation defense. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3soOYajHUBM&t=461s 

[jeffnf...@gmail.com]

Absolutely. Fortunately, the people I'm learning from show that there are multiple sides to what develops, so that there will be a corollary for the 'good' and for the 'not so good,' always opportunities for creative connecting.