Schizophrenia, Sin and the Self (Owen Barfield)

[SanteriSatama]

Anyway, Barfield was aiming his criticism of 'sinful' behavior entirely within Western culture. Hence his example of the "white man's guilt".

Cool. Then we agree that it is not a fair projection into how symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosis are interpreted and experienced in non-European cultures. On inter-cultural level, Barfield's mission of becoming better conscious of the subconscious is something that can be shared, but we should avoid also the assumption that it would be or is a totally new thing in linear conceptualization of time, or that we should limit to such conceptualization.

[David_Sundaram]

Yes, well, I did start the thread with direct excerpts from Barfield's essay. You stated his view was "included" in yours and I pointed out why that's not accurate. Simple.

I see that you do not see what I see.

your[/u] view, there is no choice as to regarding one's 'self' as 'more important' than other 'selves'. I call that the wisdom of creative evolution. A person who is not first motivated to provide for their own needs and orient their own habits of thinking is useless to everyone else.

Your answer is unrelated to what I said. If my recollection is corrrect, I talked about peeps who regarded their "'self' as being 'more important' (for want of a better descriptive) than other 'selves' in their environment" - not whether "they were motivated to take care of their own needs first".

Over and out self-justfying one.

[AshvinP]

Anyway, Barfield was aiming his criticism of 'sinful' behavior entirely within Western culture. Hence his example of the "white man's guilt".

Cool. Then we agree that it is not a fair projection into how symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosis are interpreted and experienced in non-European cultures. On inter-cultural level, Barfield's mission of becoming better conscious of the subconscious is something that can be shared, but we should avoid also the assumption that it would be or is a totally new thing in linear conceptualization of time, or that we should limit to such conceptualization.

To the extent those cultures have not been heavily influenced by rationalism and materialism (which are very few remaining cultures), then yes Barfield's 'diagnosis' may not apply. I don't really understand what you mean that it is not a "totally new thing"? If it's an accurate conceptualization of what's going on in modern culture, then it should be used.

[David_Sundaram]

A person who is not first motivated to provide for their own needs and orient their own habits of thinking is useless to everyone else.

Your [preceding the above clip] answer is unrelated to what I said. If my recollection is correct, I talked about peeps who regarded their "'self' as being 'more important' (for want of a better descriptive) than other 'selves' in their environment" - not whether "they were motivated to take care of their own needs first".

P.S. Here is what I said in my treatise with regards the issue of taking care of one's self first:

"In the interests of promoting a more nuanced understanding and interpretation of Jesus’ curt (to the point of possibly being misunder­stood) “Whosoever will lose his life for my (i.e. for capital ‘L’ Life’s) sake shall find it” statement, let me also point out that it doesn’t really make sense for a nodal soul to only be devoted to the welfare of others. Why? Because  one’s worldly being – any being, really! – requires a degree of self‑sustenance if it is to continue to function and pragmatically serve in a co‑creative capacity in any given context. The ‘best’ one can generally do in the context of The Flow of Life, therefore, is to aim to ‘enrich’ the Love and Joy processes and potentials of others by first optimally utilizing whatever opportunities may be available to operationally develop one’s self  in ways which lead to one’s becoming and being more able to ‘give back’ and then ‘giving back’, the intent in said regard being to become and thereby be as Love and Joy augmenting as possible, with an eye towards maximally facilitating others’ psychospiritual development and consequently increasing the scope and improving the quality of Life’s Love and Joy Flow (one’s own soul-‘flow’ included) over the course of time, hopefully more than creatively compensating for what one ‘receives’ or ‘takes’ for one’s self (again, over the course of time) in the process.*

Footnote*: The sentiments of people who subscribe to ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ideologies tend to become grossly unbalanced because collective selfishness biases their understanding of the Big Picture in the above regard. One has to judiciously integrate the sometimes contradictory Life-values illustrated in Jesus’ Parable of the Talents and his Parable of the Sheep and Goats on a situational basis as one goes along, since there is always a  dynamic ‘tension’ which requires a ‘balancing act’ between what individuals ‘need’ for them to personally grow and flourish and what is necessary for the healthy functioning of societies and biosystems at large. The operative truth being that individuals cannot exist, let alone flourish, without being nurtured and supported by a biosystem and society, and societies and biosystems cannot continue to function, let alone flourish, without their being nurtured and supported by contributions from their constituent members."

[AshvinP]

A person who is not first motivated to provide for their own needs and orient their own habits of thinking is useless to everyone else.

Your [preceding the above clip] answer is unrelated to what I said. If my recollection is correct, I talked about peeps who regarded their "'self' as being 'more important' (for want of a better descriptive) than other 'selves' in their environment" - not whether "they were motivated to take care of their own needs first".

P.S. Here is what I said in my treatise with regards the issue of taking care of one's self first:

"In the interests of promoting a more nuanced understanding and interpretation of Jesus’ curt (to the point of possibly being misunder­stood) “Whosoever will lose his life for my (i.e. for capital ‘L’ Life’s) sake shall find it” statement, let me also point out that it doesn’t really make sense for a nodal soul to only be devoted to the welfare of others. Why? Because  one’s worldly being – any being, really! – requires a degree of self‑sustenance if it is to continue to function and pragmatically serve in a co‑creative capacity in any given context. The ‘best’ one can generally do in the context of The Flow of Life, therefore, is to aim to ‘enrich’ the Love and Joy processes and potentials of others by first optimally utilizing whatever opportunities may be available to operationally develop one’s self  in ways which lead to one’s becoming and being more able to ‘give back’ and then ‘giving back’, the intent in said regard being to become and thereby be as Love and Joy augmenting as possible, with an eye towards maximally facilitating others’ psychospiritual development and consequently increasing the scope and improving the quality of Life’s Love and Joy Flow (one’s own soul-‘flow’ included) over the course of time, hopefully more than creatively compensating for what one ‘receives’ or ‘takes’ for one’s self (again, over the course of time) in the process.*

Footnote*: The sentiments of people who subscribe to ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ideologies tend to become grossly unbalanced because collective selfishness biases their understanding of the Big Picture in the above regard. One has to judiciously integrate the sometimes contradictory Life-values illustrated in Jesus’ Parable of the Talents and his Parable of the Sheep and Goats on a situational basis as one goes along, since there is always a  dynamic ‘tension’ which requires a ‘balancing act’ between what individuals ‘need’ for them to personally grow and flourish and what is necessary for the healthy functioning of societies and biosystems at large. The operative truth being that individuals cannot exist, let alone flourish, without being nurtured and supported by a biosystem and society, and societies and biosystems cannot continue to function, let alone flourish, without their being nurtured and supported by contributions from their constituent members."

Great, we agree on the above