I really enjoyed this conversation and the way that you and Rafe engaged in both personal and provocative topics. It was a good listen.
Something came up for me when you were reflecting on the origins of the self model–how there is a transition from the “me” to the “I.” It made me wonder if there is a similar transition from the “we” to a “collective I”? Obviously, there’s no pronoun currently for a ‘Collective I’ (“we won the game” is more coherent than “the collective I won the game”), but I’m wondering if something like a “Collective I” indicates an inseparable but more individuated constellating of beings than a we? Maybe that’s slicing it too thin, but something that came up.
The brief reference to The Respond dialogue around angels and demons was intriguing, especially since you’re writing a book about a once and future god. It seems like the angels can make us susceptible to falling into the ‘idealized self’ trap. And the demons seem like an over-vilification of the animal-body. My sense is the devil is just Christ dressed as a goat. And perhaps both are just projections of the Self anthropomorphized. That may be an oversimplification of things, but my experience with these forces of nature have pulled me in that direction. That’s my 2 cents for a Good Friday morning. Thank you!
"My sense is the devil is just Christ dressed as a goat."
This, actually, is very close to the allegorical style of hunter-gatherers and some native people. Here, no character represents pure good or pure evil, and all characters can shape-shift. Coyote is particularly mischievious, and he never does any good, but when he is in trouble, all the other animals come out to save him because, I suppose, they understand that the goat is as essential as the cross. Nice comment.
Teilhard de Chardin emphasized that every convergence of consciousness meant MORE idividuation not less. So your Collective I, seems to have something to do with this.
I really enjoyed this conversation and the way that you and Rafe engaged in both personal and provocative topics. It was a good listen.
Something came up for me when you were reflecting on the origins of the self model–how there is a transition from the “me” to the “I.” It made me wonder if there is a similar transition from the “we” to a “collective I”? Obviously, there’s no pronoun currently for a ‘Collective I’ (“we won the game” is more coherent than “the collective I won the game”), but I’m wondering if something like a “Collective I” indicates an inseparable but more individuated constellating of beings than a we? Maybe that’s slicing it too thin, but something that came up.
The brief reference to The Respond dialogue around angels and demons was intriguing, especially since you’re writing a book about a once and future god. It seems like the angels can make us susceptible to falling into the ‘idealized self’ trap. And the demons seem like an over-vilification of the animal-body. My sense is the devil is just Christ dressed as a goat. And perhaps both are just projections of the Self anthropomorphized. That may be an oversimplification of things, but my experience with these forces of nature have pulled me in that direction. That’s my 2 cents for a Good Friday morning. Thank you!
"My sense is the devil is just Christ dressed as a goat."
This, actually, is very close to the allegorical style of hunter-gatherers and some native people. Here, no character represents pure good or pure evil, and all characters can shape-shift. Coyote is particularly mischievious, and he never does any good, but when he is in trouble, all the other animals come out to save him because, I suppose, they understand that the goat is as essential as the cross. Nice comment.
Teilhard de Chardin emphasized that every convergence of consciousness meant MORE idividuation not less. So your Collective I, seems to have something to do with this.