A review of "Why the World Around You Isn´t What It Appears" by Albert Linderman.
I admit that I didn't really like this book, a
popularized introduction to the thought of Owen Barfield. Linderman is probably
an Anthroposophist, although the back matter doesn't say. Nor does he mention
Barfield's connection to Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. He does mention
Henri Bortoft, author of two books on Goethe and Gadamer, reviewed by me
elsewhere. He also peddles the urban legend that Barfield decisively influenced
C.S. Lewis, an idea Barfield himself rejected. The legend is, however, popular
among Anthroposophists...
I happen to find many of Barfield's ideas interesting, so I don't necessarily disagree with everything Linderman is saying. The evolution of consciousness, the role of language in shaping our worldview, and the criticism of strict dualism are such interesting notions, although I doubt the evolution of consciousness is as neat and tidy as Barfield (following Steiner) seems to be suggesting.
My main problem with the book (and with Barfield and Bortoft, too) is the contradiction between the idealist idea that "our minds create the world", and the more reasonable idea that our minds "co-create" the world, but that the world is in some sense nevertheless objective.
Sometimes, Linderman takes the second position, as when arguing that Reason exists already before human minds learn to grasp it, or that Thinking precedes both subject and object. Another example is when Linderman argues that the world can be seen from several different perspectives, one of them being the spiritual one, while nevertheless being objectively real. Taking a cue from Barfield, he also regards the mechanistic worldview of modernity as idolatrous, and wants us to break with it, thereby revealing the *real* world. Bingo! So there is a real world, after all, somewhere underneath the modern idols?
However, most of the time, Linderman follows Barfield and Bortoft at their worst, claiming that the only "material" stuff that is real are the subatomic particles of the quantum flux, while objects (such as chairs and tables) are created by our minds through a process of "collective representation". The evolution of consciousness therefore means that *the world itself* is changing. Thus, medieval man didn't just experience the world differently from modern man, the world *really was* different 1000 years ago than it is today. But surely, this is absurd: if medieval man had been sucked into space, he would (of course) die of suffocation, just like modern man, despite imagining space to be nurturing, spiritual and full of meaning... (Perhaps NASA should recruit astronauts from pre-modern cultures in New Guinea?)
Linderman points out (correctly) that we don't see a table "directly", but only through applying a pre-existent concept of a table on a mass of sub-atomic particles. People who were born blind but get their sight restored in old age, don't really "see" a table, or much of anything else, since they lack the concepts necessary to organize the confused jumble of impressions suddenly thrown at their eyes. But this is *not* an argument for a mind-dependent world, but the exact opposite! It's precisely because the world *isn't* mind-dependent, that the formerly blind can't make much sense of it. Why can't they simply create a "collective representation" all their own? It's also ridiculous to suggest that the table isn't really "there", just because some humans don't see it, or don't see it as a table. I can assure you that they will run into the table and hurt themselves, regardless of what "concepts" or "representations" they have... That they won't know what hit them, is just tough. Finally, where does the concept of "table" come from in the first place? Why does this particular messy swarm of quantum particles give rise to a "table", but not to a "chair" or a "philosopher named Barfield"?
These may sound like pretty basic objections, so why do these people nevertheless insist on making the same errors, over and over?
What practical conclusions follow from adopting Barfield's worldview, according to the author? He mentions bio-dynamic farming, which is based on astrology, and various holistic health practices based on meditation, mind-over-matter control of the body, etc. Linderman hopes that a Barfield-inspired vision will lead to a more empathic and harmonious society, more balance between Man and Nature, and a reverential attitude towards life and the cosmos. Following Bortoft and Steiner, the author mentions "Goethean science" as an alternative to modern science. While this is all interesting, it is perhaps a bit too idealistic...
Perhaps that is why some groups of people need to believe that the world is their own "collective representation". A world that really does exist out there, independently of our puny little minds, is a world that doesn't necessarily bow to our wishes and wants. It may take different forms, and be seen from different perspectives, but it's not really ours to command.
For good or for worse, I think that's the only world there is...
I happen to find many of Barfield's ideas interesting, so I don't necessarily disagree with everything Linderman is saying. The evolution of consciousness, the role of language in shaping our worldview, and the criticism of strict dualism are such interesting notions, although I doubt the evolution of consciousness is as neat and tidy as Barfield (following Steiner) seems to be suggesting.
My main problem with the book (and with Barfield and Bortoft, too) is the contradiction between the idealist idea that "our minds create the world", and the more reasonable idea that our minds "co-create" the world, but that the world is in some sense nevertheless objective.
Sometimes, Linderman takes the second position, as when arguing that Reason exists already before human minds learn to grasp it, or that Thinking precedes both subject and object. Another example is when Linderman argues that the world can be seen from several different perspectives, one of them being the spiritual one, while nevertheless being objectively real. Taking a cue from Barfield, he also regards the mechanistic worldview of modernity as idolatrous, and wants us to break with it, thereby revealing the *real* world. Bingo! So there is a real world, after all, somewhere underneath the modern idols?
However, most of the time, Linderman follows Barfield and Bortoft at their worst, claiming that the only "material" stuff that is real are the subatomic particles of the quantum flux, while objects (such as chairs and tables) are created by our minds through a process of "collective representation". The evolution of consciousness therefore means that *the world itself* is changing. Thus, medieval man didn't just experience the world differently from modern man, the world *really was* different 1000 years ago than it is today. But surely, this is absurd: if medieval man had been sucked into space, he would (of course) die of suffocation, just like modern man, despite imagining space to be nurturing, spiritual and full of meaning... (Perhaps NASA should recruit astronauts from pre-modern cultures in New Guinea?)
Linderman points out (correctly) that we don't see a table "directly", but only through applying a pre-existent concept of a table on a mass of sub-atomic particles. People who were born blind but get their sight restored in old age, don't really "see" a table, or much of anything else, since they lack the concepts necessary to organize the confused jumble of impressions suddenly thrown at their eyes. But this is *not* an argument for a mind-dependent world, but the exact opposite! It's precisely because the world *isn't* mind-dependent, that the formerly blind can't make much sense of it. Why can't they simply create a "collective representation" all their own? It's also ridiculous to suggest that the table isn't really "there", just because some humans don't see it, or don't see it as a table. I can assure you that they will run into the table and hurt themselves, regardless of what "concepts" or "representations" they have... That they won't know what hit them, is just tough. Finally, where does the concept of "table" come from in the first place? Why does this particular messy swarm of quantum particles give rise to a "table", but not to a "chair" or a "philosopher named Barfield"?
These may sound like pretty basic objections, so why do these people nevertheless insist on making the same errors, over and over?
What practical conclusions follow from adopting Barfield's worldview, according to the author? He mentions bio-dynamic farming, which is based on astrology, and various holistic health practices based on meditation, mind-over-matter control of the body, etc. Linderman hopes that a Barfield-inspired vision will lead to a more empathic and harmonious society, more balance between Man and Nature, and a reverential attitude towards life and the cosmos. Following Bortoft and Steiner, the author mentions "Goethean science" as an alternative to modern science. While this is all interesting, it is perhaps a bit too idealistic...
Perhaps that is why some groups of people need to believe that the world is their own "collective representation". A world that really does exist out there, independently of our puny little minds, is a world that doesn't necessarily bow to our wishes and wants. It may take different forms, and be seen from different perspectives, but it's not really ours to command.
For good or for worse, I think that's the only world there is...
No comments:
Post a Comment