I've spent the last little while focusing in on what Nibley presents as the Mantic as the Sophic. Basically the former is an expectation allowing creativity to flow while the latter doesn't recognize this creativity, and thus ends up being a kind of imitation. Those familiar with Derrida and Heidegger probably know where I was going with all this, especially the endless expectation and how this provides a new view of the world. I intentionally haven't formally brought in Heidegger and Derrida, and probably won't for a little while. Instead I've only discussed Plato. I want today to focus a little bit more on Nibley's Platonism.
Now the big question, as I mentioned, is exactly what the other word that "flows into" ours allowing creativity is. I've hinted in a few places at different answers. (And I'm not sure Nibley is consistent on this point) Plato, at least as popularly conceived, famously "reified" ideas. By that, I mean Plato treated ideas as if they were independent real existing things. Thus the idea of say a horse has an independent existence. By and large most people think this a bad idea and it accounts for most of the bad reputation Plato has. It seems silly to suggest that ideas are more real that the sensory objects they are about. We tend to think the individual horse as more real than our idea of horseness. The latter is something in our mind, and thus not real. Now historically in philosophy this debate got fairly complex. I don't want to really go through that history. But I do want to point out that there is a lot of baggage to it. Most famously in the early Christian era Augustine (among others) took some of the Platonic ideas and simply transformed this notion of reified ideas into thoughts in the mind of God. While Augustine made extensive use of Plato (especially the form it took in the Roman era) it is also important to realize that this was a big change from Plato.
I bring all this up so as to contrast Nibley a bit. Probably the best place to see Nibley's idea of this "other world" that allows creativity is on page 324.
The moments of genuine creativity are simply not within human control, all that is within human control being what Plato calls mere imitation, i.e. something that can be taught - for to learn is simply to imitate. Even when they create by inspiration, however, humans know that the result is but a poor reflection of the divine original. The greater the artist, in fact, the more frustrated he feels. . . Creation is not of this world; a place of imitation at best "in the domain of art has apparently but a small opinion of the earthly counterparts of the celestial originals." They are literally worlds apart; the heavenly originals are no mere human ideas, but, as far as we are aware of them, things actually remembered from an other world. For Plato, what we recognize here as good, true, and beautiful is but a dim recollection of what once saw in another and better world. That is Plato's doctrine of anamnesis. (324)
Now this suggests that Nibley is a Platonist. But I think Nibley is taking this more literally in terms of our regular world meaning of remember than is Plato. For Plato, anamnesis is the "vision" of these reified ideas (the forms) as we are reincarnated. In a very real sense this memory isn't a memory the way I remember what I ate last night. Rather it is a memory because I am made out of the forms and recognize myself. (It's very hard to explain and I'm not going to try because in any single paragraph what I'd say would be tremendously misleading - see the link for more info) But memory is the closest analogy. Plato's example is actually a mathematics proof which when taught he argues must have been there the whole time since there was no sensory data.
This gets us back to Nibley. Now the Mormon is apt to see Nibley taking Plato literally, but thinking that it is just a misunderstanding of Mormon claims of existence. (For any non-Mormons reading, Mormons believe our spirits are eternal and that we lived in heaven with God prior to birth. At birth we forget our past life so that we can be tested. However this is a one time thing - no reincarnation and no prior earth life.) Thus one might say that if we as spirits knew a lot, the point of existence is to get our memory back. True learning might consist merely of tricks to recall, much as student might use little tricks to recall answers for an exam.
Now the reason I'm a little leery to attribute the traditional Mormon view to Nibley, is simply because he invokes so much Plato so approvingly. Nibley was very well read and read Plato in particular a lot. I simply have a hard time seeing him think Plato was merely talking about recall as recall from temporary amnesia when we existed much as now.
Further there is, on page 321, that odd comment about the transmigration of souls. He talks about this in the substance of the Orphic mysteries as having three parts, (1) genesis of gods, cosmos and men, (2) the fall of man and retribution and (3) the ultimate destiny and goal. This third part, while obviously fulfilling the expectation of eschatology that we talked of yesterday, also is explicitly tied to this reincarnation idea. An idea foreign to most of Mormonism. (Actually it was entertained by some figures in the late 19th century, but hasn't ever been a serious part of Mormon theology) Is this just Nibley seeing a corrupt form of the LDS notion of a return to heaven and a return of our memory? Or does he see this other world in more Platonic or Pythagorean terms?
It's hard to say at this point. I have more to say, but I probably should stop here for now. As an interesting aside, here's what Sir Richard Burton wrote of Utah in the mid 19th century.
"The Mormons are like the Pythagoreans in ther procreation, transmigration, and exaltation of souls ... They take no leap in the dark; they spring from this sublunary stage into a known, not an unknown world." (Burton, The City of the Saints and Across the Rocky Mountains to California, written in 1859)
Obviously I don't think the transmigration view is correct. But there is that real question of what is the nature of this memory? Next time I want to return to this by getting to the heart of Nibley's recurring theme. Where this remembering takes place - in the rituals of the ancient world found in the mysteries which he constantly ties to the Mormon notion of a temple.
Note that this is part of a larger reading club. All the posts in this reading club can be found here.
Joseph Smith did teach the concept of transmigration of the souls.This concept was taught only to his closest followers in the latter years of his life.The church is now following in the direction of the orthodox and away from mysticism and gnosticism,because most followers of institutionlized religion have only the ability to see and not perceive-to hear and not understand, so the truth is sometime obscured or taught in private.
John Martin
The arguments for Joseph teaching transmigration are fairly weak. (Yes I've read them) It's interesting that after meeting with someone teaching the doctrine (apparently gleamed from Kabbalism) he condemned it.
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