tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2410716623228444076.post8228776809445306613..comments2024-03-29T08:26:06.759+00:00Comments on The Notion Club Papers - an Inklings blog: Owen Barfield's linkage of the historical evolution of consciousness with personal reincarnationBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2410716623228444076.post-13182087963399782672016-02-13T01:44:29.699+00:002016-02-13T01:44:29.699+00:00In terms of traditional reincarnation, I have to a...In terms of traditional reincarnation, I have to admit I'm skeptical. To reincarnation as Barfield interprets it, I'm of the same mind.<br /><br />However, as someone who's interest in the intersection of Science and Theology was first sparked by the writings Teilhard De Chardin, even before discovering the Inklings, I admit that Barfield's idea that human consciousness, or the mind, has undergone a kind of evolution is something I'm inclined to treat with a great degree of seriousness.<br /><br />Apparently, Tolkien is implied to have felt the same way, along with Lewis and (if the blurb on my copy of "Worlds Apart" is any indication) T.S. Eliot.<br /><br />One thing I wonder about is the question of Free Will in Barfield's evolutionary scheme. While Chardin theorized that the mind (or Soul) has evolved, he also stressed that the current phase, while genuine and ongoing, was also, to en extent, optional.<br /><br />To put this in Barfield's terms, Reality and Evolution are spiritual processes which go on of their own accord, whether man wants them to or not. However, because of Free Will, man has the option of "choosing to Participate" in Reality and its Evolution.<br /><br />I don't know if that fits anywhere into Barfield's philosophy, however, I'd argue that it is definitely interesting food for thought.<br /><br />ChrisCPrisonerNumber6https://www.blogger.com/profile/03156430802462353459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2410716623228444076.post-76433943987022038662016-02-10T06:43:40.812+00:002016-02-10T06:43:40.812+00:00@DLD - Steiner seems to be insistent that no knowl...@DLD - Steiner seems to be insistent that no knowledge is inaccessible in principle - by trained 'clairvoyance', and he wrote extensively about what he claimed were actual lineages of reincarnated persons. <br /><br />But I can't bring to mind a specific passage which addresses your question (Of course I may well have forgotten, and I have not read a tithe of Steiner's vast output). <br /><br />My feeling is that there is a fairly common (but not universal) belief among ordinary, untrained, unreflective people that they feel like remember some earlier existence in some very imprecise and partial fashion. This is the 'appearance' and our theory (whatever it turns out ot be) should ideally 'save'/ explain this appearance. <br /><br />Reincarnation (which has many verions, some extremely different from each other) saves this appearance, and so does the doctrine of premortal spirit life. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2410716623228444076.post-21532447492770680582016-02-10T04:59:05.540+00:002016-02-10T04:59:05.540+00:00As far as you know, do Steiner/Barfield posit a (...As far as you know, do Steiner/Barfield posit a (latent) self-awareness of the living one from one 'life-span' to another? If so, how variably in practice?<br /><br />David Llewellyn DoddsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com