I would have thought the Nibley readings would have engendered a bit more discussion. C'est la vie I guess. What I want to do in this installment is summarize clearly Nibley's position thus far, briefly mention the main philosophical camp that parallels him, and then get into a discussion of eschatology which I think lies behind a lot of Nibley's discussion.
The basic position Nibley adopts is quite a bit broader than any religious claim. Indeed his claims seem counter to what even most Mormons would consider religion. What counts isn't what one believes but rather what one anticipates openly. This expectation must be for what one doesn't know. To anticipate with the expectation of something preconceived is not to truly anticipate. This expectation is what allows creativity to occur. Indeed all creativity is really this Mantic operation.
One can quickly see from this that the Mantic Nibley talks about is present (or could be) in all people regardless of religious belief. Indeed by tying it to creativity one almost expects that Nibley sees poetry and art as paradigmatic cases of the Mantic. He criticizes art only to the degree it combines the Mantic and the Sophic (or reasoned). Thus Homer fails because he attempts to mix this inspired poetry with more "forced" or imitative reasoning.
There are two main philosophical schools that parallel Nibley. The most obvious is Platonism and is what I think Nibley's most influenced by. (The many references to Plato in this text is an obvious clue.) There are two main portions of the text that clarify Nibley's stance. "The reality of other worlds is the fundamental thesis of the Mantic." (360) Nibley never clarifies what these other worlds are. Sometimes he simply considers it literally other worlds, making an unjustified jab at science saying that other worlds didn't have life. (ibid) This recognition of the "other worlds" is often the other world of the heavens where the divine ordering is seen. Thus this other world or worlds involves at a minimum the mixing of the divine and the human and the recognition of "the full and complete plot, that is, of the drama of the universe." (320) That is that there is a plan or blueprint. "The highest expression of this national eschatology was the Mysteries: only one who had been initiated into them, says Pinadar, knows the beginning of life." (ibid)
What are these mysteries? It isn't clear if Nibley takes it merely as a type of things to come awakening people to a recognition of those other worlds or if it is really the communication of Mantic knowledge directly. If he doesn't take them in this way, then one wonders how he can escape mixing the Sophist and the Mantic. After all if these mysteries are repetitions and imitations of the Gods, then they are the classic example of the Sophist.
Let me return to Plato. Perhaps a well known critic of Plato can illuminate Nibley's position.
The man of the ages of barbarous primordial culture believed that in the dream he was getting to know a second real world: here is the origin of all metaphysics. (Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, 5)
Nibley doesn't, I think, take it quite that way. It does not appear that he adopts the Middle Platonism where ideas or abstractions were treated as real independent existing things. (For instance "horseness" existing independent of any particular horse) He does, however appear to believe that a blueprint or plans arise from this world. How detailed he thinks this planning or outright control is can't be discerned in this text, from what I can see. However contra some who seem to see him as not getting into metaphysics, on page 338 he seems to suggest this is all tied to metaphysics and the inner world.
This question of how far Nibley goes in the Platonic direction is a big one in my opinion. Certainly this text suggests he goes quite far, although clearly he is also not reading Plato in the normal fashion. (The normal fashion, he'd say, is the Sophic one) He turns to Heraclitus to apparently give his position.
Revelation, says Heraclitus: "A man should listen to the spirits [daimones, the same word is used by Socrates] as a child to an adult;" "our individual minds are pretty dull, but through the ages there exists an unmistakable consensus of humanity about things, an ethos which is not the product of reason but of revelation." There is a common divine logos in which we all have a share, and that is the one thing we can be really sure of, "the one criterion of truth."(340)
Reason or the Sophic, is the imitation of this real logos. Further, perhaps anticipating Nietzsche, within reason we can control things. His view is that ultimately the Sophic fears or denies the Mantic because there is not will to power. One's freedom is merely to open oneself to it. Even then it doesn't come as we want. Socrates searched, but did not find. Yet it is the opening which is important. Thus the return to the anticipation. And this anticipation is eschatology.
I was going to talk on that tonight, but I'll leave that for tomorrow.
I haven't read the essay yet -- not sure when I'll be able to get it.
But as an aside:
I think that Nibley's conception of the Mantic/Sophic has had a rather unfruitful, somewhat sloppy ride in its transportation into Mormon literary criticism (mainly at the hands of Cracroft).
Yeah, I linked to some of those in the first essay. Personally I think the taxonomy rather problematic for a wide variety of reasons.
I would be interested in seeing what William Morris thought was sloppy and unfruitful about Craycoft's use of Mantic and Sophic. The terms are a bit problematic, but Craycroft's essay is one of the best essays on Mormon Literature I've ever read. It ain't perfect, but to call it sloppy and unfruitful seems to be overstating the case.
Heh. I've tried a couple of different approaches to Cracroft's essay on Mormon literature, and none of them quite said what I wanted to say. I should try again -- it's the next in my (not-completely-abandoned) series on the Mormon literaturstreit.
Here's the short version:
sloppy --- I don't think those terms translate well when applied to fiction. Or as Clark points out above, it's hard to escape mixing the Mantic and the Sophic. And this is especially true of narrative art.
unfruitful --- although Cracroft makes some good arguments, he fails, imo, to fully define what Mormon literature is (only what it isn't and shouldn't be and what it should speak to [all important things, but in then end not groundbreaking, imo]). I think part of the problem is that he chooses the mantic/sophic divide as his framework. This is not to say that I find Jorgensen's framework [which hangs on the concept of hospitality] any more convincing.
You ask the question. What are these mysteries? Although it may not be clear in this particular essay, mysteries always mean temple ordinances for Nibley. He's very consistent about this throughout his writings. Hence the quote from Pindar, the initiated were those who had been through the mysteries, i.e. the temple ordinances of the ancient Greeks. Mantic knowledge is always revealed and the highest knowledge in any mantic culture is only available to the initiates, which are those who have received the temple rites.
You say: "Reason or the Sophic, is the imitation of this real logos." The sophic does not seek to imitate the real logos, it rejects it. The logos is revealed in a mantic society. Since sophic culture denies revelation there is no logos for the sophic. However the sophistic does seek to imitate it in a variety of ways through rhetoric, pseudo-philosophical arguments, mysticism, psychedelic drugs etc. In fact I think that in re-reading the last paragraph you are confusing and combining the sophic with the sophistic. You say: "the Sophic fears or denies the Mantic because there is not will to power." The sophic denies the mantic. It is the sophistic that fears it, and I think that the will to power applies especially to the sophistic. The sophistic hates/despises/fears the mantic because it is not a power that he can control. Hence it cannot be bent to the will of the sophistic to control, exercise power, make money etc. Several excellent examples of the how and why the sophistic does this is in Nibley's "The World and the Prophets" which is why I suggested that it would be profitable to read selected chapters from it.
The sophic is what I would consider as an honest scientist or philosopher. They know their place and are honest about the scope and limits of their work. For me Dawkins as a scientist and Nietzsche as a philosopher are good examples of the the sophic. They don't hate religion, they just think it is bunk. They are honest atheists who reject the good and the bad that comes with Manticism and honestly say that 1) this life is all there is 2) you as a person are not special nor cared for in the grand scheme of things 3) there is no grand scheme of things and (for at least Nietzsche) 4) traditional morality has no basis.
You say: "This question of how far Nibley goes in the Platonic direction is a big one in my opinion." I would say that he is not very Platonic at all. He is very Socratic, but not Platonic. Now I admit that one has to read Plato a certain way for my statement to be true, but I think it a defensible one. There is nothing of Platonic rationalism or idealism and no hint that one arrives at ultimate knowledge through reason (i.e. mathematics and philosophical discourse, think of the cave). However the Socratic ideals of receiving communicaion with daemons and of always seeking for true knowledge is very Nibley.
You say: "Sometimes he simply considers it literally other worlds, making an unjustified jab at science saying that other worlds didn't have life." I don't think it is unjustified. He is simply saying that when you choose the sophic path you have to deal with the data that you currently have, there will be no revelation to build your knowledge. At the time the best minds concluded that based on the data at hand that there was no life on other worlds. This simply makes his point about the limitations of accepting the sophic way of doing things.
You say: "This expectation is what allows creativity to occur. Indeed all creativity is really this Mantic operation." This is the ultimate irony for the sophic position. Some of the greatest heroes of the sophics (scientists and philosophers) took a very mantic approach to inspiration and creativity. Newton and Einstein come to mind here.
Note that this is part of a larger reading club. All the posts in this reading club can be found here.
Clark,
Though there haven't been as many comment's as you would've liked, please be assured that some of us are reading everything you've posted on the subject--along with all the comments, I might add. Thankyou. It's been a real treat.
Jack, thank you a whole lot for the feedback. While I can track the number of hits to a page as a kind of interest rank, it's all pretty speculative. While I see my blog primarily as a way to work out thoughts and put them out for others to perhaps gain something from, I also do try to target at least some of my posts via feedback in comments or email.
So let me know if you think I'm ever just babbling or going off on an ego trip so I can rein things in.
David, thanks for the feedback. The issue of Plato vs. Socrates is an important one that I think gets into the meaning of this "other world." Originally when I wrote the above I had three paragraphs about Heidegger and suggested some affinities there over Plato. But it was just a bit too much, so I deleted them. I'll get to that in perhaps a few posts. I want to cover eschatology next. I'll just say that while I don't think Nibley adopts the kind of reified ideas of middle Platonism, I'm not sure that means he isn't a Platonist. But that'll be near my conclusions.
With regards to the Mysteries always being the temple ceremonies, perhaps I ought address that. I think he tries to make a connection between mysteries in general and the temple. But I'm not sure he's successful. So I'll try and address that soon. But that's a good point and I'll hope you'll return to it when I do.
With regards to the logos. I think the sophist takes the logos as a kind of reason. I think (and will argue) that Nibley thinks that the logos is more than just reason. But clearly one has to bring up exactly what this relationship is.
The real issue that I just don't see Nibley being clear on is what he means by "world."
With regards to the Mantic/Sophist of particular scientists. Newton was a pretty hard core neoPlatonist and hermeticist. So he definitely fits. I don't think Einstein does. Although I suspect that Nibley would simply say that people can be open to inspiration without being aware of it. i.e. the Logos works in people unawares. Einstein just doesn't appear the Mantic according to Nibley's use.
Just to address a point David brought up. I'll get to Nibley and the mysteries later. But simply saying it is the temple ceremonies avoids the question of what Nibley understood their nature to be. (Assuming he has a view) I'd add that this central place of temple ritual and mysteries is shared by Mircea Eliadi.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble