Transcending Categories of Thought

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Just as many moderns think of quantum complex wave functions as providing a cognizant appreciation of physical reality. Nevertheless, both your ancients and quantum moderns respectively employ metaphors to point to the true reality that lies beyond them. Just because they are not aware of this doesn't mean we shouldn't be. Realizing our limitations in categories of thought does not diminish the reality of what our metaphors are pointing to.

You also missed my point about an individual's response to a metaphysical metaphor being integral to its meaning.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're heading in the direction of the debate between nominalism and realism. but as I read Campbell's statements he uses metaphor in the negative and includes it in a pragmatic manner. He gives no life to it and states that we can use it in a negative or positive sense(Pragmatism or "as if").

Back to the issue of a pointer to reality we of course place words on external reality and somehow manage to understand each other.This leads to the genius of language. So if you wish to bring to my attention the existence of a positron I can come to grips with it through a concept which you might bring to my attention. This concept might have many connecting links which in science would definitely include experimental and mathematical evidences. so ,in science, the presentation builds within these two buttresses of what is considered reality. In the scientific world I'd be hard pressed to call this metaphorical for this brings forth a negative connotation. What is being said is that "you can't know x in science" just as Campbell states you can't know"G" for all is metaphor(unknowledge?).This is a continuation of a Humeian scepticism in which one cannot know. The response to this was the Kantian "catagorical imperative".

As I understand it "nominalism" places "tags" on reality but denies the value of the word in any living sense. The realist states that words and concepts have a life within and in the debate in which Aquinas championed realism he brings to consideration that "thought is divine". The obvious perception is that thoughts are supersensible as is thinking. These thoughts have a reality to them and in a real sense we bring forth concepts which are our presentations of this reality(in fact are this reality).

The real question is :how does one present this reality to another or what is the nature of language vis a vis thought.In the far past language and thought were connected so that if a man spoke out of that supersensible reality as per example the ancient Indian the thought lived through a man and expressed itself through the vocal cords. This ability was lost and thought and language have become disconnected. Our thoughts are in most cases so vague and dream like that it is with great difficulty that a true presentation of our thoughts via language is accomplished.

The question of 1 in 6 million or 6 million universes is consequential to the alienation of man from nature(and man). Another variation of how do I know what I see is the same thing as my neighbor? When a man speaks to another the second person lives within the first and effectively suppresses his ego and unites(better word?) with the ego of the speaker.The whole conundrum of thought,feeling and will forces of which the first is presenting in speech manifests in the listener. that is how one person knows what the other is presenting. A similar situation is in music in which one "becomes one" with the music.

In the written word it becomes more difficult for the various presentations of words, in order to bring these realities to another, must be couched appropriately and in following one's presentation(speech or written) one is actually within that reality in which is being presented. Thought is divine(supersensible).

At the very least, thought, speech and language are living forces which can and do have meaning in our world and are definitely not lifeless nomens.

If one states that a metaphor, though not real, points to the true reality, it fails to realize that the word/speech/concept one is using is also contained within that very reality. The word or concept of that examined reality must per force come from the reality itself through the speaker/presenter.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So half of the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts; those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts, and so they're lies; those are the atheists

[/ QUOTE ]

How mataphors can be facts? Could you give me an example?
(It seems to me that in this quote 'meataphors' = 'miracles', in this case I agree. Religion is based on miracles, and the main difference between theists and atheists is their position in respect to the miracles.)

Do you mean turning water into wine is a fact? If someone can show it under controlled conditions I'd accept it. For the moment the only 'fact' about such a 'mataphor' is that it was written more than a 1000 years ago by someone (pbobably delusional), and since then no one was able to show anything similar to it.

Cliffnotes: The quote is misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Campbell is saying goes way deeper than that. Spend some time contemplating the first two sentences,

"God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought. Even the categories of being and non-being; those are categories of thought"

Understand the idea of a metaphor. When describing an airplane to a caveman you might say, an airplane is like a bird. That's a simile. Or you might make it a metaphor by saying, an airplane IS a bird. As a metaphor notice that an airplane is not in FACT a bird. The metaphor only serves as a pointer for the caveman to provide him with some sense of understanding for what an airplane is. It allows him to relate the unknown airplane to something he is familiar with. It would be a mistake for the caveman to insist that the airplane must therefore actually be a bird. But it would also be a mistake for him to insist he has been lied to because he has been informed by way of a metaphor.

Look at what Campbell says. The word "God" itself is a metaphor. And the mystery which the metaphor points to is beyond even the concept of "being".

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"so it is .." seems merely slight of hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

So it is with your response.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to expand enough to suit your taste in response. Essentially, the fact we may use a word in several situations does not imply the same or similar meaning in each.
The 'so it is ..." slippage into a different area that may use the term 'metaphor' does not drag the initial meaning with it. "so it isn't .."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Facts don't exist outside of a theory, so theory is not a metaphor for the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts are not logically consistent.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That may well be. It's one of the reasons I post on SMP. Now, if you will point out some facts that exists outside of a theory/metaphor that supports it, I'll be on my way to being straightened out with a thank you.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suprised you don't see this. Look at your favorite scientific theories and look at the data which prompted their invention. You should be able to do this yourself. But here's one quick one. Consider all the data for experiments on light prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment which prompted the invention of the wave theory for light. What were the Facts on hand at that time? The Theory? Or the data?

Now go back and reconsider the OP with a fresh look and open mind. See if there's something there you haven't contemplated before, maybe something worth resisting the impulse to reject out of hand.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

I'm always puzzled why the self appointed pundits around here routinely dismiss your views as unworthy of serious consideration when you are in fact one of the most well read and deepest thinkers posting at SMP.

"Just as many moderns think of quantum complex wave functions as providing a cognizant appreciation of physical reality. Nevertheless, both your ancients and quantum moderns respectively employ metaphors to point to the true reality that lies beyond them. Just because they are not aware of this doesn't mean we shouldn't be. Realizing our limitations in categories of thought does not diminish the reality of what our metaphors are pointing to.

You also missed my point about an individual's response to a metaphysical metaphor being integral to its meaning."
- PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're heading in the direction of the debate between nominalism and realism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. The door is open to the possibility that human concepts have a life of their own per Medieval Realism. That human thought is part of reality. Part of the supersensible world as you put it. Granting this, however, I don't see nominalism and Medieval realism as being mutually exclusive. Or at least there is the possibility of a middle way between the two.



“God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought. Even the categories of being and non-being; those are categories of thought. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being; if it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half of the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts; those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts, and so they're lies; those are the atheists.”
-Joseph Campbell

[ QUOTE ]
as I read Campbell's statements he uses metaphor in the negative and includes it in a pragmatic manner. He gives no life to it and states that we can use it in a negative or positive sense(Pragmatism or "as if"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this myself. What Campbell asks is this. "Is (it) putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being"? What Campbell is doing is freeing the individual from the tyranny of abusive authoritative imposition of religious metaphors. As you yourself point out in your post, it's not only what is spoken but how it is spoken.

For example, we have written, unspoken translations of words purportedly spoken by Jesus. Each word that he spoke was a metaphor with its own life in its own language in its own time, spoken with all the additional meaning conveyed by the way he said it. That's what his disciples had available to them. What do we have today? For many it's dead words in another language printed in a book thumped on by an authority figure who preaches on them in a way many people intuitively recoil from.

How are people to form a judgement on the validity of such metaphors? Campbell advises them to search the supersensible world themselves and ask if they are "putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being". I don't see anything negative or cynically pragmatic in that. To the contrary.

PairTheBoard

[Nielsio]

PairTheBoard,

You are getting it.



It's not allowed to post blog links, so I'll just c/p the whole entry:

====

Joseph Campbell guide to the galaxy

1 The Hero's Journey (1 hour) - Introduction to the idea of myth as metaphor. Explaining the function, role and importance of myth. Telling of the life of Joseph Campbell himself also, and his own journey of finding these things.



2 The Power of Myth - Themed exploration in the form of questions and answers, with Bill Moyers. The topic is continually approached from the understanding of a layman (that's the position Moyers takes), and then Campbell takes you into the field of deeper experience. He does this by both explaining what it is and how it works, but he also let's you experience it by using the myth itself (telling the story to you).

Chapters (1 hour each, also available in audio):

The hero's adventure

The message of the myth

The first storytellers

Sacrifice and bliss

Love and the Goddess

Masks of eternity



3 Mythos - The pace in this series is much faster. You're not continually taken by the hand, and unless you've seen the previous two mentioned, you'll have a hard time getting much of it. He also introduces his model of the psyche in the first chapter, which can be very insightful. This is all JC by the way (Susan Sarandon does in- and outtros, that's all). And he really engages you into the mystery. If you're ready for it.

Chapters (1 hour each):

Psyche and symbol

The spirit land

On being human

From Goddesses to God

The mystical life

The inward path

The enlightened one

Our eternal selves

The way to illumination

The experience of God



4 Sukhavati (1h20m) - This is like a trip of engagement. There's music all-through, lot's of visuals, and ofcourse Joseph Campbell who lets you ride the mystery by showing you how the rituals work, what the symbols mean and he let's you experience it yourself.



And that's also the order I suggest you take them in. The order of 4 and 3 doesn't really matter, but 1 and then 2 is important.

Another thing I'd like to mention:

There are varying degrees of getting it. I've seen The Hero's Journey about 10 times, Power of Myth about 3 times, Sukhavati 4 times and Mythos 3 times. The function of myth is getting you in touch with something. For example getting you in touch with a different mode of thinking. A different way of seeing the universe and life and a different way of seeing yourself, and also putting you in touch with different experiences. Deep and rich experiences.

So what I get out of it now is much different from what I got out of it the first time I saw them. It now speaks much much deeper to me, and I've been able to take the different ways of thinking in. And that's really really powerful.



Also:

Now that I'm so much more in touch with mystery that's the ground of my own being, the function that mythology has to this and the power that it has, I see the modes of thinking of other people and the function that mythology takes in their life (I'm talking about primitive modes of thinking and of corrosive mythologies) much more clearly now.

[Nielsio]

The quote you started the thread with is from the beginning of The Hero's Journey. It's really the entry-point into this world of mythology.

[PairTheBoard]

Around 20-25 years ago I read Campbell's "Masks of God" and "The Power of Myth". His insights were like a beacon of illumination which continue to inform the development of my thinking and perception.

I'm sure I could benefit from those videos. Where do you get them?

[ QUOTE ]
I see the modes of thinking of other people and the function that mythology takes in their life (I'm talking about primitive modes of thinking and of corrosive mythologies) much more clearly now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think about the primitive mode of thinking prevalent around here based on the mythology of materialism and the myths of logic and the rational?

PairTheBoard

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, both your ancients and quantum moderns respectively employ metaphors to point to the true reality that lies beyond them. Just because they are not aware of this doesn't mean we shouldn't be. Realizing our limitations in categories of thought does not diminish the reality of what our metaphors are pointing to. PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
“God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought. Even the categories of being and non-being; those are categories of thought. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being; if it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half of the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts; those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts, and so they're lies; those are the atheists.”
-Joseph Campbell

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to beg off on this but believe you deserve a response. Firstly, I've loved Campbell's books and take no issue with them. In reading the above quote I read it as a didactic , for the written word. It appears that this is a spoken piece in his videos. The problem with my approach is that I did not perceive the "sense" of the paragraph. To obtain this "sense" it would be important to see the video or at least to read the transcript of the paragraphs preceding and after. The only "sense" I can make of it after consideration might be an "ironic" sense in which the paragraph would make more sense [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

The other problem is that a discussion of the meat of the issue brings me to a debate on the "G" word which I eschew. Even in a negative sense the debate of the "G" appears to me as nonsense. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].