Yes, you are a well-meaning charlatan, and all the people you cite are. Everyone who doesn't take the Socratic stance of only knowing that they know nothing is bound to be a charlatan, claiming knowledge they really do not have or comprehend — knowledge that proves false, inadequate, or some kind of betrayal.
Your "Before 1400... Before..." list is a strong tell/symptom of some very low-grade but common nonsense. There's not only been a strong subject/object mentality since ancient times; there's not just one timeline or one cultural-philosophical tradition that matters, even in "the West." You've been hornswoggled by some popular historiographic nonsense reflexes that are older than 1400... It's always been the claim of reform movements and revolutionaries that the church/state/culture/tribe went off the rails at a prior point that can be very clearly specified. This is not only reductive, but it mainly serves to keep people facing backward and blaming others rather than confronting the present and future with full freedom and responsibility for what is done now.
There are no mulligans for time-bound beings.
My own experience with charlatans or the ambient delusions and denial of our time has given me some tools for recognizing symptoms not of errant thought but spiritual sickness. This is one. A certain anxiety, failure of nerve, and a lack of will direct most users of the Western, messianic, linear idea of time to place hope in the past or future so it can be deferred to magical entities beyond and evacuated of personal agency, which those magical entities actually struggled to bestow upon humans if you take the sacred texts seriously, in any of the oldest traditions — especially the one that gave us linear, messianic time too deep for most people to bear. We've really only had to confront its depth since late 19thC geology and astronomy achieved a basic grasp of our actual situation.
The gods, like all good parents, want children who grow to the point that they tell them (the gods/parents) to fuck off and let them make their own decisions rather than mope and whine about the disenchantments of adulthood. Perhaps the finest example: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/144163.5?lang=bi&p2=Bava_Metzia.59b.5&lang2=bi
enjoyed reading this and the one before - though I haven't finished the piece I started writing in partial response to that.
There is a story, gaining a lot of ground, that sees modernity as a wilful rejection of everything but 'single vision', and that the point of this was to dominate nature or to believe ourselves the ultimate authority and so claim the power of God, or the gods.
There is another story, though, about that time, which I think is worth remembering. It's that a certain organization claimed to provide reliable guidance to truth of all kinds: literal, allegorical, moral and spiritual. When people - like Galileo - made claims that ran counter to their literal interpretation, they forced them to recant under threat of horrific torture. When other people, like Giordano Bruno, made spiritual claims on the basis of new understanding of the universe, they had them horribly killed. Despite this, the church's authority crumbled about anything that Newton could also see, and show to others. Now they claim it was a mistake ever to use the Bible to make claims about the physical world in this way, but that they can still be trusted on the other stuff.
Descartes doesn't start with the question 'how can I control everything' but with the question 'who or what can I possibly trust?' I think it's hard to blame him.
Nicholas, thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm not familiar with the proponents of such a one-sided view. Merchant's 'The Death of Nature' would be the only one that comes to mind, but that's pretty old. Who are you thinking of?
I guess one of the ways to stay clear of charlatans is to keep exploring widely and not just follow one person or way of thinking. Go both deep and wide. I have read McGilchrist's tomes, and highly recommend them. Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.
You're welcome Carri, I'm glad you liked it. Bravo for tackling McGilchrist's work. I've read Master and His Emissary, but taking my time with The Matter With Things. Every other paragraphs sparks off ideas, or puts me on some trail to research. I feel like his bibliography is a good way into that 'hidden tradition' of the west, if I can call it that, but perhaps it's not so hidden.
Go deep and wide with reading, yes, but I like Hillman's suggestion that it's good to find what light you up, what branch of the tree you're on, and follow that. The one that most speaks to me has been called the 'golden chain'. Patrick Harpur talks about it in The Philosopher's Secret Fire. Have you come across that? He's quite a character.
Yes, you are a well-meaning charlatan, and all the people you cite are. Everyone who doesn't take the Socratic stance of only knowing that they know nothing is bound to be a charlatan, claiming knowledge they really do not have or comprehend — knowledge that proves false, inadequate, or some kind of betrayal.
Your "Before 1400... Before..." list is a strong tell/symptom of some very low-grade but common nonsense. There's not only been a strong subject/object mentality since ancient times; there's not just one timeline or one cultural-philosophical tradition that matters, even in "the West." You've been hornswoggled by some popular historiographic nonsense reflexes that are older than 1400... It's always been the claim of reform movements and revolutionaries that the church/state/culture/tribe went off the rails at a prior point that can be very clearly specified. This is not only reductive, but it mainly serves to keep people facing backward and blaming others rather than confronting the present and future with full freedom and responsibility for what is done now.
There are no mulligans for time-bound beings.
My own experience with charlatans or the ambient delusions and denial of our time has given me some tools for recognizing symptoms not of errant thought but spiritual sickness. This is one. A certain anxiety, failure of nerve, and a lack of will direct most users of the Western, messianic, linear idea of time to place hope in the past or future so it can be deferred to magical entities beyond and evacuated of personal agency, which those magical entities actually struggled to bestow upon humans if you take the sacred texts seriously, in any of the oldest traditions — especially the one that gave us linear, messianic time too deep for most people to bear. We've really only had to confront its depth since late 19thC geology and astronomy achieved a basic grasp of our actual situation.
The gods, like all good parents, want children who grow to the point that they tell them (the gods/parents) to fuck off and let them make their own decisions rather than mope and whine about the disenchantments of adulthood. Perhaps the finest example: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/144163.5?lang=bi&p2=Bava_Metzia.59b.5&lang2=bi
Thank you. Especially for using the word 'hornswoggled'. Is that Roald Dahl?
Sounds like you have an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. It's good this isn't an agreement fest.
"Hornswoggle" — to bamboozle or honeyfuggle an unsuspecting rube. Early 19th-century, origins unknown.
You’ve opened the door, and are leaving it ajar for whoever wants to follow. That’s not being a charlatan.
enjoyed reading this and the one before - though I haven't finished the piece I started writing in partial response to that.
There is a story, gaining a lot of ground, that sees modernity as a wilful rejection of everything but 'single vision', and that the point of this was to dominate nature or to believe ourselves the ultimate authority and so claim the power of God, or the gods.
There is another story, though, about that time, which I think is worth remembering. It's that a certain organization claimed to provide reliable guidance to truth of all kinds: literal, allegorical, moral and spiritual. When people - like Galileo - made claims that ran counter to their literal interpretation, they forced them to recant under threat of horrific torture. When other people, like Giordano Bruno, made spiritual claims on the basis of new understanding of the universe, they had them horribly killed. Despite this, the church's authority crumbled about anything that Newton could also see, and show to others. Now they claim it was a mistake ever to use the Bible to make claims about the physical world in this way, but that they can still be trusted on the other stuff.
Descartes doesn't start with the question 'how can I control everything' but with the question 'who or what can I possibly trust?' I think it's hard to blame him.
Nicholas, thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm not familiar with the proponents of such a one-sided view. Merchant's 'The Death of Nature' would be the only one that comes to mind, but that's pretty old. Who are you thinking of?
I guess one of the ways to stay clear of charlatans is to keep exploring widely and not just follow one person or way of thinking. Go both deep and wide. I have read McGilchrist's tomes, and highly recommend them. Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.
You're welcome Carri, I'm glad you liked it. Bravo for tackling McGilchrist's work. I've read Master and His Emissary, but taking my time with The Matter With Things. Every other paragraphs sparks off ideas, or puts me on some trail to research. I feel like his bibliography is a good way into that 'hidden tradition' of the west, if I can call it that, but perhaps it's not so hidden.
Go deep and wide with reading, yes, but I like Hillman's suggestion that it's good to find what light you up, what branch of the tree you're on, and follow that. The one that most speaks to me has been called the 'golden chain'. Patrick Harpur talks about it in The Philosopher's Secret Fire. Have you come across that? He's quite a character.
Who would you recommend?