Transcending Categories of Thought

[PairTheBoard]

Nielsio provided this quote of Joseph Campbell's on another thread. I think it deserves SMP's focused attention.

[ 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 think there are a lot of points worth discussing in the quote. I wonder if Phil finds Campbell's view "pernicious"?

One comment I'd like to make for now is that I think there is a middle way between Theists who insist their metaphors are facts, and Atheists who insist the metaphors, being nonfactual, must be lies. I think Campbell alludes to this middle way in his comment, "So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good."

In my view a metaphor in general serves to point toward the truth rather than represent a factoid of truth. We can see this even in the metaphors of science, commonly called scientific theories. The actual facts of science are records of experimental results. Scientific metaphors/theories are designed to fit those results and predict new ones. But the scientific metaphors/theories are not themselves facts of reality. The underlying ultimate reality of existence remains a mystery to us. Nevertheless, the scientific metaphors/theories serve us as pointers to the truth.

So it is with metaphysical metaphors. Except that integral to metaphysical metaphors is the response of individuals to them. Are we 6 billion people in one universe or One People in 6 billion different universes? Expecting a metaphysical metaphor to fit each individual equally is like expecting a scientific theory to fit 6 billion unique universes with 6 billion different laws of physics. Thus the diversity of interpretations of spiritual experience.

PairTheBoard

[madnak]

I agree. The problem is when the "metaphor" starts commanding people or condemning people. Then you have trouble. The difference between religion and spirituality, IMO.

[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'd rather not speak to the "G" word but it seems that Campbell has brought to life the various "religious" manifestations of mankind in his books but then takes an extreme leap and states that these same peoples were using "metaphor". He may say that this is a metaphor but in no way did the ancient Greek,Egyptian, Indian, and even early Christian use "metaphors".

If a Greek in the Elusinian Mysteries spoke to the upper or lower worlds he wasn't using metaphors but was able to have a cognizant appreciation of the supersensible world. Campbell is defining those ages(at least in the quoted text) by his personal proclivities and not at all within the perceptive appreciations of the Greeks,Egyptians,etc.

Ra, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu,Ahura Mazda were all appreciated by the various peoples atavistically(clairvoyance) and cannot be approached by our modern way of thinking which includes "metaphor". So in a sense, he's right, for metaphor is not that which is the entry to those realms.

He goes on and states that if this is good for you then do it. This underlies the pragmatic philosophy of the American Dewey(a German and a Brit coined the term "as if"-forgot their names) . this is the philosophy of "as if" which states that even if it isn't true it makes practical sense to use perspectives for our own use. Therefore lets treat it "as if" it were true and all is OK.

To judge these past ages by our current concepts is fraught with untruths. These ancient peoples did not have the grasp of external reality via the senses as we do and in a real sense were ensconced in two worlds, that of the sensible and the supersensible. This is not to say that they didn't see a tree but the compelling grasp of external reality was not as strong as it is in our time. Another way of saying this is that our senses are so strong now days that we are no longer cognizant of those worlds.

It is a matter of perception and a question of consciousness as these levels of being are a matter of changes of consciousness. Our dreaming and sleeping consciousness are examples of other consciousness which we have but of course we are befuddled in our approaches to these realms.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view a metaphor in general serves to point toward the truth rather than represent a factoid of truth. We can see this even in the metaphors of science, commonly called scientific theories. The actual facts of science are records of experimental results. Scientific metaphors/theories are designed to fit those results and predict new ones. But the scientific metaphors/theories are not themselves facts of reality. The underlying ultimate reality of existence remains a mystery to us. Nevertheless, the scientific metaphors/theories serve us as pointers to the truth.

So it is with metaphysical metaphors.

[/ QUOTE ]

"so it is .." seems merely slight of hand.

Your perception of the role of scientific theory and fact seem inverted to me. Facts don't exist outside of a theory, so theory is not a metaphor for the facts. Theory is the only reality we have.
Scientific theories only point us to the truth in the sense that they steer us from a disordered, unpredictable view of reality. Fact and theory are rubbed against each other.

Metaphysical metaphors don't have that fact-rubbing property so there is no reason for thinking they're in the same compass quadrant as 'truth'. They fill the role of 'here be dragons'. They are mental hugs and security blankets and can never be anything but that.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

So it is with your response.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ 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

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Campbell has brought to life the various "religious" manifestations of mankind in his books but then takes an extreme leap and states that these same peoples were using "metaphor". He may say that this is a metaphor but in no way did the ancient Greek,Egyptian, Indian, and even early Christian use "metaphors".

If a Greek in the Elusinian Mysteries spoke to the upper or lower worlds he wasn't using metaphors but was able to have a cognizant appreciation of the supersensible world.



[/ 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

[Drag]

[ 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.

[luckyme]

[ 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