Morning Ross, if you haven’t already, you might be interested to read the short book by Peter Kreeft, the three philosophies of life. In it he explores Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs. I haven’t read it recently but it reminds me a little of your thinking here but from a different perspective. I must read it again!
You mentioned stereoscopy which brought this quote from my favorite philosopher, Matthew B. Crawford, to mind:
“Maybe the afterlife isn’t only a proposition about what happens to you after you die, in the narrow sense of a sequence. Maybe it’s something always present — an afterlife, if you will, in which all life is set, a separate-but-not-separate dimension that reverberates in and saturates the present. Having one eye on this life and one on eternal life results in a kind of stereoscopy, which you need for depth perception, to see the present world in its fullness.”
He’s speaking into a different context, but he’s thinking of stereoscopy as an epistemological faculty which seems to resonate with what you and Barfield are getting after.
It also occurs to me that Odin lost an eye, and yet he had Huginn and Muninn who go about and bring him information. I wonder if our monoscopic vision is the price for endless information delivered to us.
I wonder if myth/poetry and eternal life/eschaton are of a piece and a joint renewal of our stereoscopy.
Wow this is great. I have heard of this Matthew Crawford, but now I must read him. Great quote. Definitely getting at the same thing. And yes to your last bit especially! To me that’s a big part of regaining stereoscopy. I’m also reminded of McGilchrist’s too much left brain and not enough right brain. Seems like those things engage the right brain again and bring it out of atrophy, helping us to “see” with both sides of our brain.
Thanks for writing. I am glad to see other folks drawing from Barfield's work. Although he often gets overlooked in conversations about the Inklings or their influences, he perhaps had the deepest intellect of all the people in and around Oxford at that time.
Thanks T. S.! Agreed, Barfield is awesome. Yes, I think I'm familiar--it's kinda like anachronism--misinterpreting ancient texts through the lens of subsequent thought? I actually posted a quote from Poetic Diction about that sort of things recently! It's a picture of my book, which apparently I can't share in a comment, so I'll DM you. But yes, thanks for this. I will definitely take a look at your piece. Glad to know a fellows Barfield appreciator.
Sweet, thanks for sharing! And yes, it is like an anachronism except through the lens of consciousness. So, essentially, applying post-enlightenment thought to the pre-enlightenment age without taking into account how perceptions of consciousness would have radically differed.
That discussion was awesome, and I've been referencing you in conversations regularly ever since. I certainly hope we have a chance to speak again soon!
Thank you Mr. Byrd for introducing me to some wonderful new friends in this post. It's a bit of a survey of Barfield and indeed, Malcolm Guite is a splendid guide (Guite?). Cheers to you. CDF
Morning Ross, if you haven’t already, you might be interested to read the short book by Peter Kreeft, the three philosophies of life. In it he explores Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs. I haven’t read it recently but it reminds me a little of your thinking here but from a different perspective. I must read it again!
https://archive.org/details/peter-kreeft-three-philosophies-of-life/page/11/mode/2up
Thanks Andy. I love Peter Kreeft, but I haven’t read this, and it sounds up my alley.
It’s a really good book. I’ve just tried to locate my own copy… somewhere in my house!
You mentioned stereoscopy which brought this quote from my favorite philosopher, Matthew B. Crawford, to mind:
“Maybe the afterlife isn’t only a proposition about what happens to you after you die, in the narrow sense of a sequence. Maybe it’s something always present — an afterlife, if you will, in which all life is set, a separate-but-not-separate dimension that reverberates in and saturates the present. Having one eye on this life and one on eternal life results in a kind of stereoscopy, which you need for depth perception, to see the present world in its fullness.”
He’s speaking into a different context, but he’s thinking of stereoscopy as an epistemological faculty which seems to resonate with what you and Barfield are getting after.
It also occurs to me that Odin lost an eye, and yet he had Huginn and Muninn who go about and bring him information. I wonder if our monoscopic vision is the price for endless information delivered to us.
I wonder if myth/poetry and eternal life/eschaton are of a piece and a joint renewal of our stereoscopy.
Wow this is great. I have heard of this Matthew Crawford, but now I must read him. Great quote. Definitely getting at the same thing. And yes to your last bit especially! To me that’s a big part of regaining stereoscopy. I’m also reminded of McGilchrist’s too much left brain and not enough right brain. Seems like those things engage the right brain again and bring it out of atrophy, helping us to “see” with both sides of our brain.
Thanks for writing. I am glad to see other folks drawing from Barfield's work. Although he often gets overlooked in conversations about the Inklings or their influences, he perhaps had the deepest intellect of all the people in and around Oxford at that time.
Have you ever interacted with his ideas around Logomorphisms? I wrote a quick reflection on that last year. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. I'll link it here:https://tsfowler.substack.com/p/an-introduction-to-the-logomorphic
Thanks T. S.! Agreed, Barfield is awesome. Yes, I think I'm familiar--it's kinda like anachronism--misinterpreting ancient texts through the lens of subsequent thought? I actually posted a quote from Poetic Diction about that sort of things recently! It's a picture of my book, which apparently I can't share in a comment, so I'll DM you. But yes, thanks for this. I will definitely take a look at your piece. Glad to know a fellows Barfield appreciator.
Sweet, thanks for sharing! And yes, it is like an anachronism except through the lens of consciousness. So, essentially, applying post-enlightenment thought to the pre-enlightenment age without taking into account how perceptions of consciousness would have radically differed.
Yes, so good.
Thanks for sharing although I had to read it twice to understand. It's a lot to digest.
Well thank you for reading it twice! Yes, I know. It's a bit much.
But worth it. And it does give us a good idea of how and why Lewis developed his ideas, especially The Abolition of Man.
Agreed!
Outstanding work, Ross: a new Substack from you is always an event.
Thanks man. You're the best. Shoot, this reminds me...I need to share our conversation! Still very grateful for it. Still thinking about it.
That discussion was awesome, and I've been referencing you in conversations regularly ever since. I certainly hope we have a chance to speak again soon!
Thank you Mr. Byrd for introducing me to some wonderful new friends in this post. It's a bit of a survey of Barfield and indeed, Malcolm Guite is a splendid guide (Guite?). Cheers to you. CDF
Anytime!