Wild Predicitons
Original Participants
Our virtual Rabbit Room- This site is a meeting room for the Original Participants to discuss the philosophy of Owen Barfield, as well as share and mutually critique our own literary endeavors.
Why Original Participants?
Original Participants comes from the term "Original Participation" coined by Owen Barfield. I was introduced to the philosophy of Barfield in a class taught by Jefferey Taylor at Metropolitan State College of Denver and was immediately hooked. I am a graduate student now at the Medieval Institute at WMU and still find myself analyzing much of what I learn through Barfield's paradigm of evolution of consciousness. The blog is a space for me to write out thoughts and papers, which all have the common thread of dealing with that topic. I also post some of my poetry because poetry is always about evolution of consciousness. Please feel free to comment.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Here is another poem inspired by my wife:
Dreams are vaporous things;
evaporated
thoughts;
whiffs
and breaths of things we know, all floating round on unseen currents wafting through
our sky.
But
daylight comes and dreams condensate;
thoughts
drip down, collecting as plans and arguments;
stories,
lessons, and explanations.
And all day long my thoughts rain down on
you.
You
are the earth to my heaven;
The
riverbed that forms their course.
My
thoughts eddy around your sarsens, lap at your banks, cascade into your canyons
and soak into your fields.
I
hold you at night, and my thoughts pool peacefully in the oceans of your
bedrock;
Rolling
softly against your shores.
And sleep comes, and dreams;
Evaporating
my thoughts;
lifting
them up into that cloud of unknowing.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Bleed Out Thy Soul!
I posted this a couple of years ago but it was relevant to my last post and I decided to repost it here.
That which animates our earthen bodies is unique to the universe and can only manifest itself upon this earth through our material bodies. We can let that unique intelligence which was made with the same material as God retain itself and not flavor the earth with its precious ingredient, or we can let our soul bleed out over the earth and leave behind our scent for others to sense as they too pass through in their earthen vessles. Slash your soul to pieces! Grind it, mutilate it, and let its essence run, glowing, upon the dust to bring it out all the more green and alive for others. Bleed out thee, thy soul, upon the earth! Bleed out, and touch the fate of the material universe!
That which animates our earthen bodies is unique to the universe and can only manifest itself upon this earth through our material bodies. We can let that unique intelligence which was made with the same material as God retain itself and not flavor the earth with its precious ingredient, or we can let our soul bleed out over the earth and leave behind our scent for others to sense as they too pass through in their earthen vessles. Slash your soul to pieces! Grind it, mutilate it, and let its essence run, glowing, upon the dust to bring it out all the more green and alive for others. Bleed out thee, thy soul, upon the earth! Bleed out, and touch the fate of the material universe!
Of Men and Mousetraps
Of Men and Mousetraps
Does a mousetrap perceive the mouse it traps? No, it is simply
actuated by the mouse.
If the mousetrap had a million parts, would it then perceive
the mouse? Does the number of mechanical steps involved change a mechanic chain
reaction into perception? Between each
step of action there is only one step of actualization. If no single step of actualization can
constitute perception, then no long chain of single steps could produce
perception either. Thus the number, or
complexity of the steps involved is irrelevant.
The trap is actuated and it produces the effect predicated by the
physical laws governing the material that makes it. In fact the simplest mousetrap, when viewed
from a molecular level, is made of billions of parts all interacting with each
other anyway.
What if the trap uses a high definition camera linked to a
powerful computer which scans the image a thousand times per second, analyzing
the image so as to snap at the precise time when death would be most likely and
would not snap on the hand of the setter, or anything else that wasn’t a mouse
- would it then be said to perceive the mouse?
If the image of the mouse is the actuator and not the physical touch of the
mouse, can we then say the trap perceives the mouse? When dealing with images it is often tempting
to project perception upon the machine that captures or utilizes imagery -
vision being our primary perceptive mode - but doing so projects a human,
extra-natural essence onto the image. The “image”
as processed by the device has no such extra-natural essence and is simply another
form of material actualization. The
light bouncing off of the mouse hits the cameras sensors creating a specific
profile on the sensors inside the camera.
That impulse is then relayed through some ingeniously written software that
either suppresses the chain of action or allows it to continue based entirely on
mechanical principles. It is still actuation
for it is an entirely mechanical chain of reactions, no matter how long or circuitous
it is. We can trace the exact chain of
mechanical process, right down to the molecular patterns on the hard drive
plates making up the magnetic codes which, given the correct series of
electronic impulses from the camera sensors, would allow the actuation to
continue and let the mouse trap snap. Although a salesman may use verbiage that
personifies the machine – “The Ratslap 3000xl sees the mouse and then decides
whether or not to strike,” – in fact the process is as mechanical and free from
perception and decision making as a simple, spring-loaded mousetrap. What we personify as decision-making ability
and image perception is really all physical inevitabilities and chemical
mechanics.
Are humans just a complex mousetrap?
To many in the secularized West, possibly a majority, would say that man is
the material that makes up his body and nothing more – so, for them, the answer to that
question would be “yes!” If a human sees
a mouse, for example, the light bouncing off of the rodent enters the eye,
actuating a material process involving the parts of the eye (lens, retina,
rods, cones, etc.) and the nerves of the ocular system (optic nerve, crux,
Cerebral cortex, etc.). This chemical chain
reaction ends in the sight centers of the brain, where they are interpreted. The
final step between the physically actuated chemical process and the phenomenon
we experience as sight is usually bridged by some statement akin to: “the
stimuli of the optic nerves are interpreted and that is how you see.” Likewise, if the interpretation of said light
signals indicates that an action needs to take place, say to slap the mouse
silly, the brain actuates a nervous impulse that carries through the correct
channels of nerves to the muscles of the arm and hand, and other balancing
muscles of the body, hopefully with enough coordination and speed to actually
slap the rat. Hence the brain is the end-of-the-line
interpreter of incoming sensations (perception) and the beginning-of-the-line propagator
of outgoing signals (purposeful action). Everything in the human experience is
explained by material cause and effect, and the human is only a very complex
machine. A priceless, precious, and much-loved
machine, mind you, but a machine nonetheless.
This is the mentality that predominates the secular
west. Man is the material that makes him
and nothing more. Yet, this ultra-materialist
mentality rests on several illogical assumptions. First, even for the ultra-empiricist,
perception can only be explained by an existential duality, for it states that
two separate processes are involved in seeing (or hearing, or tasting etc.) – a
signal has to be properly relayed, and an interpretation must be made of that
signal. To be conscious of something is to be separated from it, at least in part. The ultra-materialist then
illogically cordons off the brain as the necessary second entity of perception. Furthermore, it acknowledges that the signal relayed
to the brain is not sight; rather, the interpretation of that signal is sight,
thus imbuing “sight” with an extra-material, or extra-natural essence, and
undermining its own primary materialist assumption. By this logic the brain is
conferred an unstated magic – a fantastic place where consciousness is distilled
and bottled with a medulla oblongata cork.
And yet there is no magic line crossed when the signal enters the
brain. It continues in a ongoing
chemical chain reaction. Is the brain not made of cells just like the rest of
our body? Are those cells not made of
the same carbon based organic molecules that the rest of the body is made
from? They differ slightly to be sure,
just as a bone cell differs from a skin cell, but the relevant point is that
the chain of actuation is still a material/chemical process inside of the brain,
and as pointed out earlier, complexity of a chain reaction is not a sufficient
explanation for consciousness.
The assumptions are even more clearly out of logical
alignment when we reverse the direction of the impulse. Everything that a person does, the people
with this secularist mindset may say, is theoretically traceable back to some
material cause. Often times the brain is
given as an answer to the question, “what is that material cause in human
decision and action.” Presumably, a
brain cell (or set of them) actuates whatever it is we are doing, thinking, or
experiencing at any given moment. For example, if I choose to write the letter
‘f’, what is the impetus that actuates the physical process which ends in my
finger pushing the letter ‘f’ on my keyboard.
If I answer “the brain” I am again cordoning off the brain as something
other than the body and giving it the inexplicable ability to self actuate (and
not at random either). It is as if the ultra-materialist
has decided that an uncaused cause inside the brain is in perfect logical
harmony with their own materialist principles when in fact it deeply
contradicts it. (See posting
“Metaphysical Man”).
The ascent of the
brain to emperor of existence is understandable. The empirical facts show that all externally
actuated sensations end in the brain. It
is also true that all internally actuated signals to the body come out of the
brain (with the exception of certain reflex bundles). Thought and imagination both begin and end inside
the brain. All signs point to the brain
as the terminus of perception and the propagator of thought and action. While this seems in sync with the facts, a
bit of further thought shows it to be spurious.
In order to resolve the flaws in this logic the brain must be understood
to be a nexus. The brain is simply that
last material link in the externally
activated chain of perception, and the first material link of internally caused signals. In the case of thought/imagination, it is the
first and only material link. Thus the
brain is part of the body and is part of the physical process, a very important
part, but it is not the locus of either perception, or the impetus of movement
and thought. I am the source of
perception. I am the impetus. My brain
doesn’t see – I see through my brain. My
brain doesn’t move my fingers; I move my fingers by way of my brain. My brain doesn’t think; I think with my
brain. While the Western world believes
that man is the material that makes him and nothing more, I maintain that reason just as easily indicates that man is
the material that makes him and a little bit more.
But what is this ‘little bit more’?
That will have to be another posting, on another day.
Labels:
critique of positivism,
Free Will,
Ontology,
Romanticism
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
A Sonnet For Denise
Dandelion Seeds
Her little fingers hold the stem so light,
A puff of hope just waiting for its day,
She dreams of joys to be, with eyes shut tight,
And blows the seeds, which pirouette away.
Her heart’s white wishes, in the dance of time,
Are tossed and lost to fields of thorned regret,
But others fly from past till now, and I’m,
A witness to her seedling’s minuet.
I cannot catch them in my hands so rough,
But when I kiss her face and see her smile,
The music of the spheres stops long enough,
For one to stop and rest a little while,
My love’s great work is that I may bestow,
A home for tiny seeds blown long ago.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A Poem for my Father
Fathers and Sons
Waves are crashing on the shore,
Rivers racing evermore;
Boys are running every day;
To try their hand at father’s chore.
Skies are dripping wisdom’s thoughts,
Seeds are growing into crops;
The eyes of youth are tilting up,
Learning more than what is taught.
Mountains are mourning loss of glory,
Builders taking from the quarry;
Sons are growing in their skin,
Bodies tell their father’s story.
Craftsmen are carving with strokes of time,
Marble’s grain dictates the line;
Children’s hearts bear fixed runes,
Pointing to their true design.
Wind is blowing ‘cross the field,
Summer’s stem brings forth its yield;
Boys are growing into men,
Whispered counsel all revealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)