High Levels of System Participation Preclude Final Participation
Although I am not very well-versed in Barfield’s ideas concerning participation, I think I have grasped the basic concepts enough to understand that the Final Participation Barfield envisioned is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from the System.
Barfield advocated for a conscious re-engagement with the world that synthesized analytical and logical thinking (alpha thinking) with our intuitive and imaginative thinking to fully perceive and, more significantly, actively participate in the spiritual that underpins all Creation.
Such active participation raises consciousness to a state of co-creation; that is, the fusing of imagination and reason to not just perceive but assiduously participate in creating deeper and richer interactions with and experiences of reality (Creation). Barfield also suggested that such active (Final) participation would dissolve the demarcation line currently separating the perceiver from the perceived.
Original Participation entailed an absence of systems or extremely rudimentary systems that were spiritually attuned to the aliveness of everything in Creation. The eventual rise of systems dissolved Original Participation and detached consciousness from its immersion in Creation. Consciousness shifted from being spiritually attuned and fully immersed in Creation toward a state of self-awareness and detachment. The separation between the perceiver and the perceived was established and became fully entrenched. Consciousness essentially became alienated from its source.
The rise of self-consciousness allowed analytical, logical, and conceptual thinking to flourish; however, it came at the cost of fortifying the false barrier man had constructed between himself and Creation. Spiritual systems were able to bridge this gap to some degree through symbols and rituals; however, the symbols and rituals lost their power over time, and spiritual systems essentially became “bridges to nowhere.”
Barfield adamantly maintained that a return to Original Participation was neither possible nor desirable, implying that Final Participation should involve the re-imagining and re-creation of the sorts of systems that dissolved Original Participation.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Barfield also did not advocate for a return to the same sorts of spiritual systems (churches) that came to dominate consciousness after they had eclipsed Original Participation.
It also seems clear that a divinely-minded consciousness cannot be the “product” of a system. Put another way, systems cannot induce Final Participation. Hence, Final Participation must occur at the personal and individual level first.
Whether that spills over into any sort of system and what kind of system such a system would actually be is secondary. At present, I can only imagine Final Participation at the group level within a family or a small circle of friends, but such a development would seem to require simultaneous experiences of Final Participation within individuals who then recognize such developments in themselves and others.
Returning to the main point expressed in the first paragraph of this post, I am firmly convinced that Final Participation is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from our current System, primarily because our current System is brazenly anti-God and anti-Creation—and yes, this sadly includes the bulk of what constitutes Christian organizations and institutions.
Our current System is not only anti-God and anti-Creation; it is also opposed to divine-mindedness. Thus, high-level attachment to the System precludes the fostering and nurturing of the divine consciousness Barfield envisioned.
Final Participation involves the generation of co-creation. Spiritual participation in our current System is only likely to induce co-destruction.
Believing that divine consciousness is somehow the “product” of a system and that spiritual systems of the past can nurture and foster divine consciousness are telltale signs of high levels of attachment to the System. Despite beliefs to the contrary, reforming the System will not generate the kind of divine-mindedness Barfield envisioned.
If we are serious about becoming more divinely-minded, then we must forgo a high level of System attachment.
At the present time, this appears to entail adopting an “in it but not of it” spiritual perspective that forgoes temptations to improve, reform, restructure, or rectify the System in favor of actively re-engaging with Creation at a deeper, more unified level.
To sum up, high levels of spiritual “participation” in the System hinder, if not outright prevent, the divinely-minded consciousness required for Final Participation in Creation.
Barfield advocated for a conscious re-engagement with the world that synthesized analytical and logical thinking (alpha thinking) with our intuitive and imaginative thinking to fully perceive and, more significantly, actively participate in the spiritual that underpins all Creation.
Such active participation raises consciousness to a state of co-creation; that is, the fusing of imagination and reason to not just perceive but assiduously participate in creating deeper and richer interactions with and experiences of reality (Creation). Barfield also suggested that such active (Final) participation would dissolve the demarcation line currently separating the perceiver from the perceived.
Original Participation entailed an absence of systems or extremely rudimentary systems that were spiritually attuned to the aliveness of everything in Creation. The eventual rise of systems dissolved Original Participation and detached consciousness from its immersion in Creation. Consciousness shifted from being spiritually attuned and fully immersed in Creation toward a state of self-awareness and detachment. The separation between the perceiver and the perceived was established and became fully entrenched. Consciousness essentially became alienated from its source.
The rise of self-consciousness allowed analytical, logical, and conceptual thinking to flourish; however, it came at the cost of fortifying the false barrier man had constructed between himself and Creation. Spiritual systems were able to bridge this gap to some degree through symbols and rituals; however, the symbols and rituals lost their power over time, and spiritual systems essentially became “bridges to nowhere.”
Barfield adamantly maintained that a return to Original Participation was neither possible nor desirable, implying that Final Participation should involve the re-imagining and re-creation of the sorts of systems that dissolved Original Participation.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Barfield also did not advocate for a return to the same sorts of spiritual systems (churches) that came to dominate consciousness after they had eclipsed Original Participation.
It also seems clear that a divinely-minded consciousness cannot be the “product” of a system. Put another way, systems cannot induce Final Participation. Hence, Final Participation must occur at the personal and individual level first.
Whether that spills over into any sort of system and what kind of system such a system would actually be is secondary. At present, I can only imagine Final Participation at the group level within a family or a small circle of friends, but such a development would seem to require simultaneous experiences of Final Participation within individuals who then recognize such developments in themselves and others.
Returning to the main point expressed in the first paragraph of this post, I am firmly convinced that Final Participation is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from our current System, primarily because our current System is brazenly anti-God and anti-Creation—and yes, this sadly includes the bulk of what constitutes Christian organizations and institutions.
Our current System is not only anti-God and anti-Creation; it is also opposed to divine-mindedness. Thus, high-level attachment to the System precludes the fostering and nurturing of the divine consciousness Barfield envisioned.
Final Participation involves the generation of co-creation. Spiritual participation in our current System is only likely to induce co-destruction.
Believing that divine consciousness is somehow the “product” of a system and that spiritual systems of the past can nurture and foster divine consciousness are telltale signs of high levels of attachment to the System. Despite beliefs to the contrary, reforming the System will not generate the kind of divine-mindedness Barfield envisioned.
If we are serious about becoming more divinely-minded, then we must forgo a high level of System attachment.
At the present time, this appears to entail adopting an “in it but not of it” spiritual perspective that forgoes temptations to improve, reform, restructure, or rectify the System in favor of actively re-engaging with Creation at a deeper, more unified level.
To sum up, high levels of spiritual “participation” in the System hinder, if not outright prevent, the divinely-minded consciousness required for Final Participation in Creation.
No comments have been added yet.
