This is a really,
really Big problem! What is more, it affects the very best and most important thinkers and writers in my pantheon of influences for
Romantic Christianity - Steiner, Barfield, Arkle...
The problem is that
the understandings and explanations of such people are/ remain rooted in abstract phenomena -
despite that these are intending to advocate a personal, '
animistic', '
anthropomorphic' metaphysics.
Their basic idea is that reality is a matter of Beings in Relationships... That the ultimate entities are Beings (alive, conscious, purposive) and that what holds things together and provides structure is the relationships of these Beings.
Yet ni advocating a metaphysics of Being and Relations; these authors fall back, again and again, into abstraction; into the use of examples drawn from physics, geometry and mathematics.
eg. Steiner in Philosophy of Freedom develops his argument wholly abstractly, in terms of categories of
percept and
concept, and his example is the geometrical figure of the triangle.
Barfield uses physics as his primary mode of explanation; the rainbow is his most famous example; and he calls his new way of thinking '
polarity' which he describes relationships between beings in abstract-mathematical-physics ways - using magnetism and electricity as explanations.
Arkle's main book, A Geography of Consciousness, uses geometrical and physics graphs, tables and diagrams to explain his 'system' - despite that he explicitly asserts everything is alive and conscious.
This could be regarded as a prime example of
Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) as described by Barfield - and the fact that Barfield himself was prone to it (as was his Master, Steiner) shows how difficult it is to shake-off. This difficulty is most apparent in Barfield's most deep and rigorous book - How Coleridge Thought - when the clash of perspectives is the source of greatest difficulty in understanding the argument. Barfield seems unaware of how his abstractly-structured schemes are so fundamentally at-odds-with what he is trying to prove using these schemes. The key term 'polarity' is mathematical and derived from magnetism (later electricty) - and as difficult to understand intuitively as most such ideas are.
The problem is so old that it can seem inevitable - it goes back to the ancient Greeks, who nearly always used (the ancient equivalent of...) physics as the basis of their metaphysics - with principles such as fire or water underlying 'everything'.
Another example is that 'form' is taken as primary (as with Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas) - and 'form' is conceptualised in geometric terms and often using geometrical examples. (A modern instance is Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields.)
Whereas the primary reality is actually A Being, not A Triangle; is a Being's motivation, not a force or principle.
This abstraction then leads on to the problem (the error) of regarding Time as... optional. The delusion that Time can be set aside, redefined etc. When a world is seen as abstract as its reality and bottom line - then Time loses its function; indeed Time becomes a nuisance!
Yet, if the world is of Beings, beings exists In Time, and only In Time. In cross-section, there are no Beings - because in a 'zero' timescale there is no Life, no Consciousness - if Life and Consciousness are primary, then there is and always must be Time...
Thus one error leads on to another,
But what this does show is the need for further work for
Romantic Christianity; because Steiner, Barfield, Arkle are all in error by using maths/ geometry and physics as their models and explanations.
There us work to be done to restate their arguments in terms that are coherent with the conclusions of their arguments.
The good news is that - when thus restated - the metaphysics and theology of Romantic Christianity becomes something intuitively understandable by a child; rather than requiring advanced training in the natural sciences.
