One of the supremely rewarding and invigorating things about finding the Cheating the Ferryman Thesis, was the manner in which it both drew from, and gave to, the discipline of Philosophy. The dyad and the Bohmian Imax not only "fit in" with the main branches of philosophy, but actually answered them. They enriched and informed the areas of epistemology and phenomenology, which form the basic support for philosophical questions.
In America , New Age Phenomenology has turned its back on the elegant language and phraseology of philosophical discourse, betraying its truest ally. It has thereby gone quite astray. It has bitten the hand which best fed it, and it has softened considerably in the aftermath.
We philosophers tend to be outcasts: We are defending a classical tradition, which has its roots in antiquity. The philosopher, unless posting on blogs or forums specifically aimed at that esoteric breed known as "academic philosophers", is often treated as a dinner guest whom no one seems to know why, exactly, was extended an invitation. Tolerated, seen as slightly insane at times, and often ignored, because he drags the classical language from centuries ago into today's glaring light, and utters phrases which are not drenched in the popular culture of the fast -paced media, with its sound bites and jargon. Too often, the philosopher struggles valiantly against the tide of competing ideologies and disciplines more geared toward modernity, or postmodernity, until in bewildered silence he leaves, to slip once more into the shadows from whence he arose.
I have tried to be optimistic amidst the scorn with which American academia in general has treated this elegant and most beautiful of all disciplines. With patience, I have struggled to place Peakian theory within philosophical discourse with essays which I am aware do not have broad popular appeal. But feelings of foreboding and uneasiness push to the surface, become urgent, when I write posts for the ITLADian forum, and keep within the bounds of simplicity and brevity, and the purpose fails utterly. That purpose: To facilitate debate and discussion; to make Peakians/Itladians interested in the philosophical underpinnings of Tony's work; to share the excitement of Tony's uncanny ability to beckon, and to address, this elegant monster of antiquity. But I feel a certain sense of dismay - perhaps even alarm - as I see that this is not occurring. Unless Tony or his Philosopher can tell me what it is that I am doing wrong, the manner in which I am approaching the forum incorrectly, I am left to assume that philosophy's light is fading, not only in American culture, but in the Itladian culture as well. I hope that this does not prove to be the case.
16 comments:
Addendum: As we say over here in America, "Gee whiz!" : I hope this post will not be misconstrued as a philosopher throwing a fit like a spoiled brat. I think there is frustration sometimes, and we often say to students, "Please, ask questions", just to get a debate started, or to get the flow of conversation going. May be that I used a bit of poetic license, and overstated my case here, so I must say to Tony, this is just expression; I am of course very happy to post in a NONphilosophical manner, if philosophy has become a drag (it often does become such, I will admit!)
Susan Marie: Fascinating post and I appreciate fully your personal concerns.
Interestingly, knowing your skills within Philosophy and my own within logic, I am sure that you can see the minor false syllogism in your opening introduction as whilst Philosophy is indeed integral to the whole ethos of ITLADic theory I do not think any one aspect of it should be given undue prominence.
Philosophy, Psychology, Quantum Physics, Neurology, Consciousness Studies, Perception and Time Relativity (amongst others) are all equal players in the composite ideology.
In the 21st Century of technology and the age of the internet, the will for immediate answers has never been so determined. Indeed the phenomenal successes of Google and Wikipedia are testament to such, and thus the ancient arts such as Philosophy, which posit questions without answers would naturally rescind somewhat, which you and I of course think is a travesty, but I think it is too early to be decreeing the death knell of ITLADic Philosophy: far from it.
The next stage of the EITLAD looks inevitably to be within the cerebral studies of Mental Health, Consciousness and thus also Philosophy.
Descartes, Locke, Plato, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Heidegger et al ALL have much yet to contribute to such discourse and dialectics, and I for one will be in the vanguard of such a movement and would strongly require your considerable talents in this area to be alongside us.
The balance between empiricalism and epistemology is vital to maintain the equilibrium of strong CTF theory; the dyad within Philosophy thus becomes entangled with the dyad of the Daemon-Eidolon.
The UK seems far more ready to accept such a paradigm shift than the US as you and I fully accept; the challenge in expanding the theories and thus bringing the debate required to strengthen the expansion inevitably includes opening up the ideology to all areas, and the schism in the US between Science and Spiritualism is one that must be bridged.
Your work to date in assisting this has been remarkable and unequivocal and as we approach the publication of The Daemon this will provide a perfect springboard from which to launch a new offensive to build this bridge and thus encompass into the fold some new and challenging ideology.
En Avant!
*smile*
Karl Le Marcs: Thank you for your extensive comments, which as always are as insightful as they are wide reaching.
It may be that my feelings of frustration reflect the agitation which is the daily state of affairs now in America. We have reached a juncture which is unprecedented, and there is simply nothing comparable in the UK, or Europe. Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" was published in 1987, and warned of the coming anarchy. Academia in the US now stands where he indicated.
Bloom as a gay man was one of the outsiders afforded an epistemic privilege from the gods. He extolled the virtues of Plato and Socrates; he defended The Republic and the precepts of Aristotlean ethics and politics, even as he knew they were being discarded, vanquished, from American curriculum.
Philosophy is utterly held hostage by our alarming evangelical troops, which have invaded every cranny. The fact that our Democratic candidate, who was to be our hope of change and national rebirth, has recently spoken of his own evangelism in tones that echo and surpass W Bush is telling, and a certain neo-facism is tainting even his campaign. In short, as an intellectual American, my frame of mind is one of constant alarm and aroused suspicion.
As an American, I am almost certainly a polluter of the British. I am now WHOLLY glad that men of the caliber of you and Peake are NOT involved too deeply with American affairs. This will not be the place for a resurgence of scientific theory in fusion with quantum "metaphysics". Your own country will receive you, as ours will soon reach a state where you would both be branded as heretics (particularly Tony).
Wittgenstein, Holbach, Jaspers, Marcuse, Heidegger; Nietzsche, Kierkegaard: the products of Europe, the offspring of a tradition which extends back to The Republic; not only to Socrates and Plato, but to the pre-Socratic hero, Heraclitus: These can be of no use in our sliding America, but I trust in your own capable hands, they will serve Peakian theory well. The deontological imperative of Kantian discourse may find a home , a wider home, within Peake's daemon realm. Unfortunately, "en avant" will be the watchword of Great Britain; over here, "Deo Vindice!" has been raised up as the vulgar and facist cry, even out of the mouth of Barack Obama, whom our American blogosphere now calls, "our next dead President". Just be certain that your own en avant does not slide into this cry.
Susan Marie,
I appreciate fully your concerns but I genuinely believe that they are unfounded. I for one really appreciate your contributions and feel that they are absolutely crucial if the theory is to develop. I know that your postings have had many bloggers rushing off and checking up the great minds that you regularly cite and this is of huge importance. Speaking for myself you have had me go back to my books on philosophy a read them in a new light.
Clearly we need to attract more philosophers to our little band. Time will tell but I am sure that this will happen.
So, in short SM, you are doing nothing wrong at all ....
Susan: What an alarming post! You are not at fault! Because you and others on the blog/forum express yourselves so eloquently; you act as the voice for others leaving very little to debate. How do we debate theories and ideologies when we are in agreement? I see you as being so far ahead of the pack that you cannot see those of us who run in the same direction. Reading the blog and forum have become a luxury for me, responding is rare. My hope is always that the balance of free time vs. busy will once again weigh in my favor. Until then I very much appreciate the effort that bloggers such as yourself put forth. If Tony's CTF & dyad are the heart of this blog, your philosophy is the blood that courses through it's veins.
As for your dismal assessment of the American mindset; I'm saddened to agree. It would seem blind faith is easier than philosophic and scientific analysis and frees us from the burden of accountability.
Please do not give up the fight!
Oh, thank you Tony, and thank you, Robin. I do feel my involvement with the Barack Obama campaign (or should I say over involvement?) and with American academia has me in a frame of mind which is suspicious and agitated, and I unjustly allowed it to flow into a perfectly lovely and benign UK blog. Please accept my apologies for that, and Tony, I am honored to be your reader and blogger. Robin, you are an astute fellow American, I can see that. Thank you both. By the way, I am beginning to receive wonderful feedback on my own blog site, not only from fellow Americans, but from Europeans. Tony, a friend of yours contacted me, and I thank you for sending him to my door.
ROBIN: I wanted to extend an extra special thanks to you for agreeing on my American commentary. Some have said I am becoming too suspicious, but the fact that an astute woman out in Oklahoma is seeing the situation as I am, is most edifying. Barack Obama's recent speeches are sounding eerily like W Bush's, and I am starting to grow uneasy. Thank you for saying you see what I see, Robin, from the bottom of my heart.
Tony said "your postings have had many bloggers rushing off and checking up the great minds that you regularly cite and this is of huge importance."
This is certainly true in my case. You are inspiring and educating us SM. Don't be discouraged.
THANK YOU, RUTH. And I do apologize; I have been in some weird frame of mind of late. Feeling paranoid and jittery before the Democratic convention, plus I am Italian, and like my crazy Italian father, all violent passion and crazy moods. So, so very sorry. Oh well, it was a nice post, just did not apply here. My bad.
And LeMarcs, in all truth, your remarks were so well written , so surpassing my own in clarity, they made me feel sheepish. I would do anything to have your calm, your ordered mind, without these wild storms which pass raging, electric, hourly through my poor brain. I think I am clearly the bipolar of this blog.
Addendum for Anthony Peake: I am posting on the forum a clarification with regard to the daemon's role in philosophical discourse, which I believe should be kept as distinctly separate as is possible from the right brain, quantum theorizing, etc. This is for purification purposes, only.
susan, I agree u r crazy!!!!! arent we all? a little? I know I am sometimes....
keep up the good work gurl....
and one sugesstion, please take everything slowly.....EVERYTHING!!!!
and yes... ive taken the encyclopeidas out to understand your references...
Thanks, Rosh. Glad to know my philosophers are being referenced. Yes, I am reigning myself in, like Plato with his chariot and horses. Thanks again.
Susan Marie: ["And LeMarcs, in all truth, your remarks were so well written , so surpassing my own in clarity, they made me feel sheepish. I would do anything to have your calm, your ordered mind, without these wild storms which pass raging, electric, hourly through my poor brain.]
Thank You, one tries ones best!
*breathes on monocle*
And thank you to Tony, Robin, Ruth and Roshni for adding their comments following my own, I hope we have all assisted to assuage your assumptions.
*how alliterative*
Philosophy is not dead.
"Where death is, I am not; where I am, death is not."
Epicurus
*smile*
Karl I second that!
Indeed Susan Marie!
May I add my own humble addition to your delightful and research-inducing post, and paraphrase your countryman to suggest that
"reports of Philosophy's demise are somewhat exaggerated! ;-)"
If progress sometimes appears glacial then consider the tribulations of convincing british business to adopt ideas and methods from Hawaii! or indeed anything that may be timeless and proven, rather than new, and erm, ineffective and (often)soul-destroying.
I went through a self-doubt period last year, and therefore
I heartily recommend the CD version of "Keep Going - The Art of Perseverance" by award winning Lakota storyteller Joseph M Marshall III published by Sounds True.
These wonderful tales of difficulties overcome!
Enjoy!
aloha
Gary
Aloha Gary: Thank you for seconding that emotion Gary!
*smile*
I fully agree with your paraphrasing!
Post a Comment