A Fool's Phenomenology

[rva_jeremy]

Has anybody read this book?  I'm reading it now and finding it hands down the most illuminating experience.  If anybody else is reading or has read this book, or would like to, I'm interested in discussing it.

[Plenum]

it's not something that I've read myself.

But as an ancillary question:  this is the only single published work devoted to Ra's Archetypes, isn't it?

[rva_jeremy]

As far as I know. It's difficult to put into words the different ways it's exciting and stimulating me. It's very dense diction--I have to unpack it all the time, re-read things, go back a few pages and catch up, but in that sense it's in the staid tradition of so-called "confessional philosophy".

The way Tyman weaves in the history of philosophy of mind into his exploration of archetypes is really cool. I don't have his background, but what you start to get from following his narrative is the idea of western philosophy skating along the surface of a better relationship with deep mind. That's a wonderful perspective to take on Ra's approach, because the radical departure Tyman points at -- away from classical reason or the "ratiocinative" approach towards something more heart-centered -- grounds Ra's points in a history and a tradition. The big problem with Ra's approach to the archetypes is orientation; you can intellectually digest these abstract relationships they cite, but orienting oneself within them so often seems a gulf too wide.

Setting aside my personal fanboyishness towards philosophy, though, I think he does about as good a job at "catching the archetypes on the wing" as anybody could hope. His method is the confession: a kind of narrative of thought organized into assertions, observations, and questions constituting something like an inner monologue on display. This monologue hints at the character of the archetypes, or rather why something like the archetypes would be significant, through rigorous reflection and careful, discerning description of matters I can't begin to summarize. I don't know about y'all, but stream-of-consciousness chatting with oneself is often how I tend to deal with conceptual problems and questions, so it feels very natural, like letting somebody else drive and really enjoying the route they take. It's almost like he's built a sculpture whose object is less the artistry of the structure itself (though you could justifiably spend a great deal of time on it) than the negative space it creates. This is a work of great subtlety and effort.

Phenomenology is the study of the structure(s) of experience and consciousness. To the extent he is intelligibly talking about experiences and states of consciousness that are categorically different than the philosophical mindset, let alone the western mindset, this is not only a fantastic book but really a singular work. I guess I wonder if there's anything else out there remotely like this in the academic world.

The big questions for me are Tyman's intent. Where did he expect this to fit into the body of philosophy? What are other philosopher's opinions on this? How does he get away with referencing so many verbatim concepts in the Law of One material without much explication? It's actually incredibly bold. If I were not a student of the Law of One, I'd look at the list of 7 archetypes of the mind at the beginning of the book and would be like, "so… you just made up a structure that you're going to shove everything into, huh?"

Really hoping he'll be at homecoming! And I also hope you all will give the book a chance at some point. I'll be re-reading it immediately, so just hit me up.

[Sabou]

Thanks for the suggestion, just bought it!

[rva_jeremy]

One more thing: As Gary can probably tell you, the archetypes has been the area of most interest to me since I first read the Law of One material. But they're also one of the most frustrating parts because, given that Ra had little time to dive very deep into them at all, they're largely an open book. This means that anybody's say is as good as another's, and I've found it very hard to discuss or study them in a group setting. It's too hard to at once apply a light touch to this very delicate subject while at the same time engaging in the group conversational dynamics, the disagreements, the difficult work of translating from thought to words. In fact, it almost feels like the very act of assembling a single interpretation of the archetypal pantheon into a concept the mind can grasp is to lose their value in the first place, because a concept digested to satisfaction is a concept that can be safely considered finished and easily put away to ossify and stop expanding.

What I think is most heartening to me about A Fool's Phenomenology is the way Tyman seems to completely avoid these pitfalls. First of all, just witnessing somebody ideate on this to completion -- to the extent that words and thought can be a complete treatment of this subject -- is revelatory. Conversation may just not be the right way to do the archetypes, I think, because that stresses a verbal structure and consensus amongst two people who should perhaps have a much more visceral, personal relationship with this study. Letting a single part of the creator have a complete say on this, right or wrong, is refreshing, and allows the points to grow from pithy observations and statements too sweeping or subtle to be meaningful in their own right into a whole work that takes a while to grok, but rewards that time well.

Secondly, this is discussion of archetypes that is anchored to something that sits in between waking material consensus reality and the platonic aethers of pure thought. The solution here is to speak in the first person, to speak from the self, as a "confession" to be contemplated rather than as a concrete concept fully formed to be accepted or rejected. It does not try to convince you of anything, and yet it makes claims nevertheless that resonate. You're not being taught the archetypes; you're along for a ride. If you grow in your appreciation for the archetypal mind, it will not be because Tyman made any one argument you found irresistible. It will be because, having walked a mile in the shoes he wore, you find yourself walking with a slightly different gait.

Also, Tyman is a great writer. Is this a hard book to read? Yes. Is this a hard thing to write about? Hell yes. But in a way, all the energy I put into understanding the words lulls the rational mind to sleep. Something else happens in the interstices.

5 stars, would buy again.

[JustLikeYou]

I have read the book. Like you, Jeremy, I found Tyman's narrative very illuminating and I appreciated his refusal to be pinned down logically. He weaves his dialectic in a way that side-steps the reader's demand for a straight answer.

Having said that, I felt that his treatment of the actual archetypes took a back seat to his expounding of the overall philosophy of the Law of One. I was also left wondering who his intended audience was, since he seems to assume so much familiarity with the history of philosophy. I really would have liked to see him spend more time with the eight archetypes he chose for this book.

[tamaryn]

Thanks for the rec guys! I'm def chiming in on this thread once i start it.

[rva_jeremy]

Having said that, I felt that his treatment of the actual archetypes took a back seat to his expounding of the overall philosophy of the Law of One. I was also left wondering who his intended audience was, since he seems to assume so much familiarity with the history of philosophy. I really would have liked to see him spend more time with the eight archetypes he chose for this book.

Agreed.  It's weird to read a book about archetypes that doesn't really deal with archetypes, but with the negative space around them.  Then again, isn't that appropriate?  Isn't the poetic approach that gives them an inspirational valence, rather than the academic approach that gives them a discrete definitional gravity, just perfect -- as unsatisfying to the "ratiocinative" mind as it is?

Also, I think he dealt more with the archetypes as abstract functions (if the archetypes can be more abstract) than as specific, articulable dingen an sich.  The discussion of the 22 archetypes as specific stations was vague if not completely lacking.  But discussion of what it means to be a significator, matrix, potentiator, etc. was definitely there.  I admire the emphasis on the kinetic depth of meaning in the archetypes, divorced from the actual things in relation.  That probably helps people understand the archetypes on their own, more subtle basis instead of capturing them with words.

[JustLikeYou]

Your enthusiasm and support for Tyman's approach to the archetypes in particular makes me feel like I was unfair with him when I read through it the first time.

My attitude about the archetypes has been, for years now, that every time Ra talks about the nature of the 3D experience (which is frequently), he is using archetypal resonances to do so. On the one hand, that makes expounding of the philosophy as a totality necessary to the project of treating the archetypes. On the other hand, it also suggests that by merely treating the archetypes, one will have no choice but to incidentally expound the philosophy as a whole.

Tyman actually intended (and hopefully still intends) to write two more books. Presumably, since the first one dealt so much with expressing the Law of One philosophy without recourse to the Ra Material, the latter two would be able to deal with the archetypes more frontally.

My own approach to the subject, (current hosting woes not withstanding), has been almost the diametric opposite of Tyman's. Where he sought to bring the reader's cognition into a super-rational state in order to touch upon the archetypes each in our own unique way, I seek to bring the archetypes down to the ordinary world in order to reveal them at work in our every word and deed. And it's a good thing, too. It would be annoying to discover that someone else has already written the book you're working on.

[rva_jeremy]

Your enthusiasm and support for Tyman's approach to the archetypes in particular makes me feel like I was unfair with him when I read through it the first time.

Well, you didn't say anything about the book I hadn't myself thought.  But also keep in mind that I'm only 2/3 done with it.  The further into it I go, the more I see the relevance of the archetypes as subjects of the book rather than supporting characters.  But it's subtle; I think as LOO students we're looking for signposts to interpret works we respect and like.  We place the work in a LOO context, identify and capture the insights we expect to find, and consider it "understood".  What I'm starting to see is that this finality of analysis can sometimes crowd out deeper insights we didn't expect to find.  That's certainly a position I've come to between the moment this thread started and the present.

My attitude about the archetypes has been, for years now, that every time Ra talks about the nature of the 3D experience (which is frequently), he is using archetypal resonances to do so. On the one hand, that makes expounding of the philosophy as a totality necessary to the project of treating the archetypes. On the other hand, it also suggests that by merely treating the archetypes, one will have no choice but to incidentally expound the philosophy as a whole.

Granted, but I think you're justified in expecting a book titled "Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" to deal with its claimed subject in a more forthright manner.  Like I said, I'm seeing more and more how this book does deliver on what it promises, but you have to meet Steve more than halfway to get there.  I wonder if that's just inherent in any sort of philosophy of mind, where the author has to beckon the reader to digest complex concepts in novel ways.

Tyman actually intended (and hopefully still intends) to write two more books.

Well, that finally explains why he lists only the archetypes of mind at the very beginning of the book!  I didn't get a chance to really discuss this work with Steve at Homecoming this year, but he has agreed to correspond with me and I'll check in with where he's at on this project.  Surely I'm not expecting anything soon; he's been through the meat grinder version of catalyst lately.

My own approach to the subject, (current hosting woes not withstanding), has been almost the diametric opposite of Tyman's. Where he sought to bring the reader's cognition into a super-rational state in order to touch upon the archetypes each in our own unique way, I seek to bring the archetypes down to the ordinary world in order to reveal them at work in our every word and deed.

Indeed!  By the way, if you need help with any of those hosting issue, holla.  I'm sure we can find a way to help you continue serving.  I enjoy your blog and have been steadily working through the archetype essays you've written.  

In a way, I see a unity to what both you and Steve are doing, at least in the sense that you've both realized you have to go beyond what Ra provided in order to make a study of the archetypes useful to a reader.  It demonstrates in spades the multifaceted nature of this subject, and has shown me that it requires not one approach but the non-dogmatic, fluid ability to transition between perspectives to see the full shape and volume of deep mind.