Myth Makes Meaning - On this replay of an earlier episode, Michael Meade describes myth as {being ancient and immediate } at the same time. Whereas most people imagine myth to be something old and of a past time, Meade explains how myth serves to break the trap of linear time and can return the human soul to a living sense of connection to both the cosmos and the deep self. “We are in a mythic condition again and myth makes meaning,” states mythologist Meade as he shows {how the shedding of forms in the world can bring us closer to the origins of life and the sources of renewal and recreation.}
Taking a moment to acknowledge the shared wealth of study (Gestalt & Gebser comes to mind) this cohort has already undertaken was not intended to offend. In my opinion, I appreciate your vast and varying interests as it adds so much more context to the understanding of a concept, as seen in our reading of Langer.
Far from the conversation being a wild beast, more the dog chasing its own tail, undecided if it is pulling alongside the cart or being dragged by it (both Cleanthes & Zeno state this better than I).
My fear is we become lost in our enquiry, in search of something to satisfy all.
Whereas my desire would be to keep the momentum going and build onto our shared understanding of the “symbols in our meaning”; we can enter consciousness, neuroscience, VR, the underpinnings of identity, intentionality, originality, authenticity and agency, and so much more.
The issue for me would be to give an opportunity to all to state a concern, interest or direction supported by more than the simple basis of an, as yet, unanswered question within the group. Let us reflect on a creative praxis that would add to the potential ability for the creative living of all Cosmos participants.
For example, I’m currently reading I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter; a text I came to purely for its mathematical reference but Hofstadter offers so much more of an insight into how abstract mathematical representation becomes the basis for all modern incarnation of an algorithm, in an as humorous and playful manner possible. Hofstadter defines a core ‘I’ surrounded by choice, every choice coded to represent a virtual ‘I’ who is predicated upon the basis of past choices already recorded, every new choice adds to the prediction scope & reliability of the virtual ‘I’, and we enter a Singularity (of sorts…) by proxy.
It is my belief that we communicate more by adding more than just the sole question alone.
I am very aware that Dogs and Men have a long history. W.H, Auden said that dogs and humans have a mutual love of theater. Working with dogs is in some ways more satisfying than working with humans as the constraints upon the imagination are determined largely by the bodies of the human-animal communique. They do not talk but they do communicate wonderfully well.
We have been engaged in these turbulences before as we move from project to project and this is what I would call the frame crisis, and was exposed in our Langer reflections. And I agree, the dog can wag her tail or she can chase it, a ’ sign’ perhaps which alerts us that we are close to a threshold. Out of chaos an order emerges at a higher level if we are willing to deal with the paradox rather than try to avoid it.
Hofstader is one fo the great explorers of the paradoxes of identity and I’m so glad you have brought his work to the table. I’ve read many of his books with great appreciation. As we seek to find a goldilock’s zone, ( not too easy, not too difficult) I find that particular book a good fit for our group’s current capacities. And he is a fabulous writer, who can work with music and art as well as logic and math. I don’t always agree with him but I have found him indispensable and would love to explore this one as it is on my shelf already. Hofstader said the most interesting thing about style. He said style in is a synonym for spirit. That sounds like perfect pitch to my ringing ears ( I have a bit of tinnitus).
Sounding a personal note. What is fascinating about having a mild case of tinnitus is that it breaks up the sense of clear inside or outside boundaries. It brings attention to the bell like tones inside the ear contrasted and compared to the outside sounds that we have to make really real in order to negotiate crossing a street. The dashboard of the mind with all of its dials and buttons is suddenly brought out of the background into the foreground. Hearing, which we assume is just there, is actually another strange somatic loop. Mcluhan elaborates upon this a great deal as he examines visual and acoustic space.
So, I can imagine many reasons for getting into a loop with Hofstader and also I would like to create a sense of a consensus. The consensus building is what happens next and that is where the open frame on the 6th would be a benefit. It is much easier, I have found, during live calls, to clariify shared outcomes without reducing complexity.Objections can be encouraged, commitments can be activated, a mutual sense of agency emerges. We don’t need a top dog!
I still have a yearning to do McLuhan’s Laws of Media, as he gives some clues for how to work within the liminal zones as a culture is cracking up under great stress. He was quite prophetic. I imagine his book could be done in two sessions. It is very short.Hofstader’s book could be done in four sessions. Let’s make a plan.
As you are bringing your desired outcome into the public space, comrade, I would encourage you to sponsor Hofstader and shape your thoughts and feelings and share with us what the benefits of this study could be for yourself and for us. I imagine I could sponsor Mcluhan and together ‘we’ can cross the threshold into a more coherent ‘we’ space. Please let us think long term and short term. How do we put these intellectual ambitions into an order at a higher level of organization?
Others may also wish to co-sponsor a favorite author. Please make these preferences known so that we can set up a page by this Sunday to alert eveyone who is interested and together prepare for 2022 organic intellectual engagements.
As I have been outside of the time of this “strange loop” of a conversation I will take the position of an insider looking out or as an in-outsider with (or without) in-outsight. Though I have much to add on dogs, creativity and reading lists, I will just add a few logical-logistical thoughts.
On the content of the Café: Welcome again to our ongoing discussions Matt @PureMemory and you, Eware . . . our humble theoria, poiesis and praxis modalities. Where we go from here is yours to contemplate, yours to make into something fresh, yours to bring into the world and make a reality. I have relished in and benefited from your insights and explorations.
Currently (from my pov) we have two discussion threads. In the Beyond Physicalism thread, a few of us are exploring Bernardo Kastrup, Henri Bergson, Eric Wargo and Marshall McLuhan (among others). Johnny, Matt and I met a few weeks back on a Monday and we plan to have more discussions around these topics of time, free will, expression and McLuhan’s tetrad. We also have the Langer group just coming out of an exploration symbolic transformation, language, logic, aesthetics and myth. I see the warp of Beyond Physicalism and the woof of Langer forming into a mutual discussion around McLuhan and the Four Laws. I very much like Johnny’s McLuhan suggestion and see this as a ‘logical’ progression from where we left off. But then again, anyone can make connections. When I read this from @edoubleoo:
. . . I hear the voice of Bergson. Bergson was destined to be a mathematical prodigy then decided upon philosophical investigations. The “core I”, the infinite “virtual I’s” and Singularity sound quite Bergsonian to my ears. To Johnny’s ears, Hofstadter adds some spiritual style to his tinnitus! Just another example of how each and every one of our personal explorations can mix and mingle with all others. So how do we take what has been proposed and make this a reality?
I fully support Johnny’s proposal towards consensus building in real-time, virtually, face-to-face. Along with Matt, we have a few others on the @ccafe crew who have previously shared desired readings. January 6th’s Café can be utilized to listen with sincerity and deep intent as we define the possibilities of future explorations. An intensive, intimate gathering. Why are we here? What makes our philosophical investigations so meaningful? We can toss in a bit of creativity as well.
Another logistical sidenote: I am imagining that we can keep our Thursday Café sessions flowing and perhaps open up Mondays to a sort of sister thread, weaving their own solo materials and mutual interests. The Thursday’s sun to the Monday’s moon. For example, if we decided to go with Johnny’ suggestion of two sessions of McLuhan and four on Hofstader, we could set up McLuhan on Mondays and Hofstader on Thursdays. As we come from different locations on the globe, date and time matter as to when and how we participate. I want to let it be known that if a reading or discussion wants to arise, I/we can make this happen at most any other time. If you wish to lead a reading group on a book or other material, feel free to bring in your chosen materials and even other comrades who may not be part of this conversation and start up a reading group. Email me if you would like for this to happen.
On the ‘flow’ of the Café: I appreciate the careful cultivation of the Café. Since September we have had a continual thematically grounded conversation (from explorations on language and into Langer’s symbolic transformation). We ended our Langer sessions with an interest in exploring the subject further (along with a grand list of possibilities). Ed’s referenced essays are helpful in rekindling previous hot topics (Gebser; integral theory) with Langer’s work. Eware’s fresh seasonings have us ‘seasoned’ cafe folk following subtle scents previously left unnoticed.
We use the Cafe metaphor quite literally; we have on occasion created a virtual menu that lists out readings, videos, themes, etc. In short, we each are chefs creatively mixing or farmers transporting organic ingredients or managers making decisions as well as the customers, diners, hungry souls. Thus we tend to want to eat the entire menu. Eyed words bigger than the stomach can digest. And, what is great about the lot of us is that even if we select one main course (or dessert) to share, we each bring our personal experience to the table. Nothing is off the menu yet we do tend to navigate towards our favorite dishes. New chefs bring new recipes, etc. etc.
I appreciate your efforts to bring the conversation, or the ‘next higher level of order of out chaos,’ as John framed it, into focus. And as Doug suggested, some of us may—I am guilty as charged, and it is a pleasure to be guilty in this case—suffer from the Omnivore’s Dilemma. I am, perhaps, a bloated loop, and I want to read it all!
I would gladly read McLuhan, Bergson, Hofstadter… and much more. I have found over the years that I learn a lot more from what others (the ‘right’ others—such as everyone here) are interested in, than what I think I’m interested in. Or more precisely, there is a dynamic balance I am seeking between individual and group interests. In the in-between/inner-outer/self-other fluctuating zones seems to be where a greater intelligence can work its magic.
That said, given my other temporal work/life/cosmic commitments, I do have to keep myself on a “diet” of sorts. I want to be able to participate in a live Café every couple weeks—with a few other special events thrown in on special occasions—and feel confident that I can get the reading (and re-reading and thinking about) done, as well as give the forum discussions some mindful attention.
Since I do not have a strong preference or intuition among the reading proposals so far, but am most interested in the quality and helpfulness of the conversations overall, I will go with the consensus that emerges here, and be there or be square with bells on, sporting my tattered thinking rag, reporting for duty on January 6th 2022, which also happens to be the Feast of Kings (or Epiphany, or Theophany) day in the Christian tradition, and my mother’s birthday.
I love this idea, Doug, as the two weeks between sessions can feel like watching paint dry. I read quickly or not at all. Ewere mentioned momentum and as a movement maker( actor, director, voice coach, body worker, activist, symbolic modeler) I have found fast/slow mind dynamics can shape discourse in interesting ways as we move between different styles of encounter. For those like Marco who like to take it slower he/they can have the option to do one or the other or both and can keep up with the video recordings as his schedule permits. I can do both Monday and Friday live events and maybe co-hosting other more spontaneous sessions that might emerge from this group activity. I prefer a three ring circus on an empty stomach to a quiet library after a big meal.
Some caveats. As I’m grateful for much that is available to us on line I also mourn for what is less available as the Digital Age drowns out the old styles of discourse. The webinar in my view is a terrible reduction of the old style seminar and I fear that a steady diet of webinars can stunt your growth. I have noticed how a dreadful sameness sets in when the expert gives her talk, a mediator screens questions and an audience member waits for permission to unmute herself. Constipated cognition is often the result. Timing is off. No proportion kept. Modeling in the moment is almost impossible in these kinds of set ups.
So, the Cafe has had an openess that I do not feel in other spaces as well intentioned as they often are. There seems to me to be more information gathering in those types of webinars than agentic knowledge creation. The Cafe has been an antidote to that style of communique. That’s a difference in my view that makes a difference and that is why I share it here.
You bring attention to the asyncrhonous time we are working with as we are spread out over different time zones with different appetites. Some times we want a large meal and sometimes a tasty appetizer. The Monday Moon Thursday Sun feels like a diffrent way of structuring feedback that could be more focused on the rythmic living persons involved rather than being catered to by a digitized version of a meal that comes with no menu and is not intended to be eaten. Chronic information dumping leads to poor concentration. I speak from experience. I prefer to sponsor a more anarchic performance space.
I hear you and that is why our organizational meeting on the 6th can accomodate polyphasic relational circuits. We have the infrastructure and we need aesthetic relationships to make use of the infrastructure. In my view it is the relational aspect that is lagging far behind the advanced techo spin we are in. Preparing for a good transition to the next world while living in a crumbling society, the golden years have become a black and white twilight zone. I feel a keen need to give back a little of what I have recieved from so many. Desire can become envy if we are not given a chance to shape that desire into significant forms. We are modeling Time, Space and Knowledge in ways that no society has had to do before.
“I still have a yearning to do McLuhan’s Laws of Media, as he gives some clues for how to work within the liminal zones as a culture is cracking up under great stress.”
Coincidentally, my copy of Laws of Media just arrived a week or so ago, before I knew you were considering it. I would be interested in joining the discussion.
