David Lavery was chair of the 2002 session at RMMLA. held in Scottsdale, Arizona. The 2003 session will be held in Missoula, Montana. Danny Smitherman will be the chair. Plans are under way to establish an Owen Barfield Societry as an affiliate organization of RMMLA, beginning in 2003.

Peter Fields, Dave Joplin, Jeff Hipolito

Jane Hipolito, Jake Sherman, John Ulreich

Jeff Hipolito

Terry Hipolito, Jane Hipolito, Jake Sherman

• John Ulreich, University of Arizona. “Shall [Hu]man[kind] at the last be whole?”: The Influence of Owen Barfield on John Milton

Abstract: The influence of Barfield on Milton: a Spirit (Barfield’s surely, at once his own and more than his own) inspiring Milton’s ‘unpremeditated verse.’ I. Worlds Apart: The Making of Myth In the process of likening Eden to various ‘Hesperian fables,’ Milton compares his earthly Paradise to ‘that fair field / Of Enna, where Proserpin gathering flow’rs / Herself a fairer flow’r by gloomy Dis / Was gathered, which cost Ceres all that pain / To seek her through the world’ (IV. 250, 268-72). Besides being a wonderful poem in itself, this little world made cunningly is a microcosm of Milton’s epic: it foreshadows both the loss of Eve–’Her self . . . [the] fairest unsupported Flowr’ (IX. 432)–and her recovery by ‘one greater Man’ (I. 4). When I meditate on this simile, I often experience anew what Owen Barfield called ‘a felt change of consciousness’ (Poetic Diction, 48); over the years, I have also come to feel that my consciousness has been permanently expanded. Both the renewed moment of aesthetic pleasure, focused in the image of gathering flowers, and the growth of knowledge have been crystallized by what Barfield calls the ‘concrete meaning’ of the fable, in which ‘logically disconnected’ ideas are ‘poetically connected’ by metaphor: ‘in the beautiful myth of Demeter and Persephone . . . the ideas of waking and sleeping, of summer and winter, of life and death, of mortality and immortality are all lost in one pervasive meaning’ (91). Both pleasure and knowledge are enhanced when I re-read Milton’s familiar story in the light of Barfield’s strange retelling of another familiar myth, his dramatic recreation of Orpheus. Barfield’s vision of Paradise Regained is embodied in the final Chorus: softly out of Olympus the high gods shall come down Shedding ambrosial fragrance in clouds that for ever abide, And earth shall be covered with blushes and make herself sweet as a bride. And her light shall be liquid as honey, her air taste good like bread In the mouths of them that dwell upon earth, and all shall be fed. (IV.iii.114-18) For me, at least, this vision of Nature re-infused with, and redeemed by, Spirit is more spacious and appealing than Milton’s fierce redaction of Revelation, in which ‘New Heav’ns [and] new Earth’ arise like a Phoenix from purgatorial flames (XII.549). II. Saving the Appearances: The Unmaking of Myth There is, however, a dissonant note in Barfield’s hymn, hinted at in my title. In Orpheus, as in Paradise Lost, both the humanity that suffers and the ‘Greater Man’ (PL I.5) that restores it are implicitly masculine. Persephone asks: ‘Have I used well, Demeter, the man’s good gift of his breath? . . . Shall Man at the last be whole?’ (IV.iii.105, 109) Conversely, Eve and Eurydice, bitten by the serpent of lust, are both the victims of male desire and the sacrifice that appeases that desire: ‘Unto the woman [YHVH] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’ (Genesis 3.16). From this perspective, both Milton’s and Barfield’s versions of Paradise Lost and Regained seem phallocentric and implicitly misogynist. Somewhat to my surprise, it is at this juncture that Milton offers a possible corrective to the androcentric vision embedded in both the Edenic and Orphic myths. For the story that he tells in this instance is not about the Father who so loved the world that he gave his only Son–to die (John 3.16). Rather, it is about a Mother who so loved her Daughter that she allowed the world to perish while she searched for her. In Paradise Lost, this image of maternal compassion qualifies, perhaps even subverts, the dominant image of the Father’s demand for the ‘rigid satisfaction’ of justice (III.212). To be sure, this story of Matriarchal love is not exactly a satisfactory alternative to the Patriarchal myth. The hidden cost of Ceres’ pain is a source of much woe–a world ravaged by drought and famine: ‘in her rage . . . [Ceres] gave to destruction farmers and cattle alike, and bade the plowed fields to betray their trust, and blighted the seed’ (Metamorphoses V.477-80). The redemptive love of the Great Mother operates in the world only after she has struck a bargain with Hades for the life of her daughter: ‘Now the goddess, [Proserpina] the common divinity of two realms [upper and lower worlds, life and death], spends half the months with her mother and the other half with her husband’ (V.666-67). III. Unancestral Voice: The Remaking of Myth Nonetheless, juxtaposing the Demeter-Persephone myth with the Christian Father-Son story does enable us to hold the two images of sacrifice in a kind of polar tension, and that polarity may be productive of new insight. Barfield has repeatedly affirmed ‘the importance of penetrating to the antecedent unity underlying apparent or actual fragmentation’ (The Rediscovery of Meaning, 3). Another name for that ‘antecedent unity’ is polarity, grasped as an immediate fact of imaginative experience: a concrete meaning, in which contrary qualities or states of being are fused. The intuitive apprehension and representation of polarity is everywhere present in Milton’s epic–in its minutest details, like the active/passive antithesis of gathering and gathered in the simile above (IV.269, 271), as in its architectonic mimesis of cosmic structure: Suns and Moons ‘communicating Male and Femal Light, / Which two great Sexes animate the World’ (VIII.150-51). In this instance, the polarities of Mother/Father–Daughter/Son may suggest a possible redefinition of self-sacrificial love, in which parents give themselves to their children rather than offer them up on the altar of their own vindictive blood lust. According to this paradigm, often hinted in Milton’s poetry and virtually explicit in Paradise Regained , the Incarnation rather than the Crucifixion becomes the central symbol of Christian faith: ‘as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, . . . Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us’ (1.12-14). But that is another story.

• Jane Hipolito, California State University at Fullerton. Mystery Stories: Owen Barfield's Prose Fiction

Owen Barfield’s prose fiction was written over more than sixty years. It includes short stories, novellas and novels, and displays a wide variety of styles and moods. However, despite the diversity of their styles, genres, and dates of composition, Barfield’s fictional writings share a core quality: each is a mystery story. The mysteries which Barfield explores in his fiction are those which form the great themes of his philosophical and critical writings, the mysteries of love, polarity, consciousness, language, imagination, and the nature of meaning. In his fiction, Barfield engages these themes with tremendous imaginative brilliance, energy and penetration, integrating the perspectives of the philosopher and the poet. Each story unfolds like a detective tale, with at least one epiphany for the reader.

• Jeff Hipolito, Everett Community College, Owen Barfield and the Poetics of Community

Abstract: Considering that Owen Barfield?s writing career was over sixty years long and covers a vast array of topics, it is hardly surprising that very little attention has been paid to the development of his thought. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Barfield?s early explicit interest in the field of poetics essentially comes to an end with the 1946 essay 'Poetic Diction and Legal Fiction,' giving way to historiography, ethics, and essays on contemporary culture. In this paper I propose to explore the continuities between the theory of poetics that Barfield develops in the first half of his career, and the social role of 'participation' that he envisions in the second.

• Jake Sherman, California Institute of Integral Studies. The Rest of the Story: A Barfieldian Correction of Teilhard de Chardin

Those who are fortunate enough to discover the works of Owen Barfield often associate him initially with Teilhard de Chardin. After all, both authors dare to speak about that oft-ignored subject, the evolution of consciousness, and further, both do so from within a religious (Christian) framework. Barfieldians soon realize, however, that the actual picture is not quite so simple. Indeed, without ever substantially developing it, Barfield himself voiced significant reservations about Teilhard?s vision. Although both Barfield and Teilhard speak of the evolution of consciousness, Barfield's thought, through the analysis of history and language, corrects and expands Teilhard's thought preparing the way for a fruitful synthesis. Especially helpful is Barfield insight regarding "R.U.P." (the residue of unresolved positivism) in modern thought in general and in Teilhard's thought in particular. This mental habit, which Barfield sees as a characteristic even of the most engaging and avant garde thinkers of the twentieth century consists of a subconscious allegiance to a consciously rejected materialism. It occurs in those who think they have freed themselves intellectually from positivism, while at an unconscious level they remain bound. In Teilhard, R.U.P. manifests through his uncritical allegiance to a methodology that, while entirely concerned with the inner side of things, limits itself to looking always only at externals. Teilhard is only able to infer the presence of the "within" but never examines inner experience in and of itself. Our approach will be threefold. First, we will examine in greater detail precisely what Barfield means by R.U.P. and why he is so wary of it. Second, we will examine how this cognitive dissonance (R.U.P.) shows itself in Teilhard?s work. And finally, we will turn our attention to the effects this illusion has on Teilhard?s thought and opinions. The ramifications are many, resulting in difficulties throughout Teilhard?s work. Like Barfield however, who expressed both admiration and criticism of Teilhard, my aim in voicing these criticisms is not to simply dismiss Teilhard but rather to salvage his vision, which remains uniquely potent and vital.

Chair: Peter J Fields, Missouri Valley College; Alternate Chair: David L Lavery, Middle Tennessee State University

• Raymond P Tripp, University of Denver. "Thoreau, Dickinson, and Barfield and The World As Window of Opportunity

The perennial world is transparent and meaningful. The post-Renaissance loss of this world has occasioned its rediscovery. This has been given a number of names, such as Barfield's "final participation," Lewis's "external and enacted idea," Dickinson's "window pane," and Thoreau's "ice" as "window under our feet."

• David L Lavery, Middle Tennessee State University. "After the Smash: Dashboard Knowledge in the Thought of Owen Barfield"

By dashboard knowledge, Owen Barfield means merely operant knowledge of the world: the ability to manipulate and control--to drive--nature, an ability which does not at all depend upon actual understanding of its meaning or purpose. When we read a speedometer, Barfield reminds, it is well to remember that we are not actually experiencing the speed of the car. Similarly, when we inspect the findings of a radio-telescope, we must remind ourselves that we have only dashboard-knowledge of the nature of the stars. "After the Smash"; Dashboard Knowledge in the Thought of Owen Barfield" will offer more than dashboard knowledge of "dashboard knowledge"; it will explore the origin of this ingenious Barfield metaphor and its role in his iconoclastic critique of the idolatry of the modern scientific world view.

• Don Cruse, Pres., Inversion Machines, Ltd/Independent Scholar. "Evolution as a Property of Mind"

Owen Barfield argued that evolution as a process is not a property of matter, but a property which rightly belongs to mind and to the products of mental activity; so that when we use the term in reference to some artifact that is human in origin, as in say, the "evolution of the automobile," we are using it correctly. We are then describing a process in which countless human engineers have contributed their ideas and insights over a long period of time, so that we can properly speak of a technology as having "evolved." However, when we use the term "evolution" to describe a process that we believe goes on in nature without guidance of any sort, we are faced with a difficulty in science and philosophy that has been glossed over, but that could be pivotal to future thought. The idea of evolution was central to the many discussions I had with Owen Barfield, and has bearing on the word "mechanistic." I cite not only Barfield, but also Darwin, Chomsky, Polanyi, Goethe, and Steiner.

• Daniel Smitherman, University of Montana. "Lost and Found: The World According to Richard Rorty and Owen Barfield"

Immanuel Kant gave life to a metaphysic of representation for the modern world. Richard Rorty diagnosed that life as an illness, the latest symptom of which is an incoherent rambling about "alternative conceptual frameworks," or "different worlds." Rorty supposed to treat this pathology with his pragmatic therapy of edification -- continuing the conversation of humankind, the language of which is like a boat that, through time, cannot change but one plank at a time. Academic philosophy has mostly accepted Rorty's diagnosis and his claim to a cure -- stop asking meaningless questions such as, "Did Plato mean the same thing as we do by the word 'idea'?" Owen Barfield focused his attentions on Kant and language as well, sketching out a popularized Kantian metaphysic in his book Saving the Appearances. His thesis was that such a metaphysic and epistemology is attested to by the changing meaning of words over time, and this necessarily implies an evolution of human consciousness, and as a corollary, an evolution of the world. Ergo, Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas--and even Kant--lived in different worlds than we do today. The battle for "The World" is thus joined.

Presiding: David Joplin, Las Positas College
Secretary: Karen Gasser, University of Colorado, Boulder

1. "‘Where Thing and Thought Exactly Meet’: The Influence of Owen Barfield’s Philosophy on Howard Nemerov’s Poetry." Donna L. Potts, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS., 66506, dlpotts@ksu.edu

This essay investigates Nemorov’s debt to Barfield’s thought, particularly in Nemorov’s sequence poem "Runes." Attention is given to the idea that "true meaning" may be attained only by recognizing and rendering the polarity between "the subjectivity of the individual mind and the objective world which it perceives."

This essay focuses on the habit of "projecting post-logical thoughts back into a pre-logical age," which is an act that Barfield calls "logomorphism." The paper examines logomorphism and traces its implications for understanding not only Barfield’s thought but modern thought in general.

3. "Barfield and Homer." Tyler Lansford, Seattle Language Academy, Seattle, WA, tyler1@wolfenet.com

Owen Barfield's conception of the evolution of consciousness provides a useful model for understanding Homer's picture of human nature. Homer's unfamiliar construction of human experience--with its inseparability from various physical organs--takes on impressive coherence and intelligibility when viewed in the wider perspective of evolution of consciousness.

The creative and participative relationship between the world and the human imagination is investigated in Lewis’s Voyage of the Downtreader and Morris’s The Well at the World’s End and The Wood Beyond the World. The essay examines Barfield’s idea of metaphor as pertaining to the essential unity between subject and object.

Presiding: Peter J. Fields, Missouri Valley College
Secretary: David Joplin, Black Hills State University

Presenters:

Raymond P. Tripp Jr., University of Denver. "Owen Barfield, Rudolph Steiner, and Anthroposophy."

Karen M. Gasser, University of Colorado at Boulder. "A Barfieldian Approach to Emily Dickinson."

Carol H. Funk, University of Denver. "Barfield and the Seth Material of Jane Roberts."

David Joplin, Black Hills State University. "Growth of Mind in Keats's 'Ode to Psyche': A Barfieldian View."