It's been a while since I last discussed Nibley's The Ancient State. I think I've actually covered most of the core points. What I'd intended on doing is discussing how Nibley's focus on anticipation, he emphasis on the saying rather than the said, and his notion of eschatology all relate to Heidegger and Derrida. I still want to do that, but I think I'm going to do things in a slightly different fashion. While I'm still going to focus in on The Ancient State, I'm going to turn this more into a general reading of Nibley. That is there will be less emphasis of a particular text like "Three Shrines." I also think I'm going to change the tone a bit so as to not be quite so technical.
To start with let me review what I've covered so far. Basically Nibley saw a common theme especially in the ancient world which he sees as the core truth of Mormonism. That is there is a sense of anticipation towards a gift from "the other world." Having this anticipation is far more important than any doctrine. Thus he argues many with false beliefs who have this anticipation are in this true mantic perspective. (He tends to single out Socrates, for instance) I think one could argue that this entails a focus on the saying of God rather than the said of God. That is it is the direct experience of revelation rather than dogma over established beliefs that matters. As soon as you focus in on dogma, especially as understood by our reason, you are going astray. I think this entails a very strong fallibilism, although it isn't clear to me yet where Nibley's position on fallibilism is.
The second point is that Nibley sees this anticipation being established by the Mysteries in the ancient world. These tend to be foundational myths, often involving participatory rituals, that point one to the narrative of the begging, an narrative about an end time, and a discussion of how God sustains the world. (There is more, but I think those the key aspects) While we didn't focus in on it much, I think Nibley sees these things understood in quasi-scientific terms as misleading. (Although he oddly brings up taking them literally quite regularly as well) The idea is that in the Mysteries there is this meeting of the other worldly and this world. It's a place where anticipation might bring about an understanding with God.
The third point is a kind of experience of death. While similar in certain ways to the argument Heidegger makes about death, it is also importantly different. For instance whereas Heidegger is contemptuous of the notion of life after death, Nibley sees this experience of the reality of death as raising the importance of such questions. (Not necessarily the answers, but at least the concern with them) It also provides a fundamental change of value since the finitude of things is recognized. (There Nibley is like Heidegger) This can (or ought) bring about a fundamental change in perspective (and presumably more of a focus on the anticipation). Yet it also seems that this experience can be forgotten and thus might need to be renewed in certain ways. (One wonders if this is the point of the Mysteries - to raise the issue of death which many are focused in on) This experience is thus a kind of rebirth of man.
There are lots of obvious questions at this point regarding Nibley's foundational philosophy - if one can even call it that. For one, if there is this focus on the saying and not the said, how is one to take revelation? It seems almost a danger that Nibley will logically end up with the bane of mysticism. That is, a focus on the experience of the other world or at least the experience of the recognition of an other world under all things, as being more important than anything else. The experience becomes what counts. I don't think Nibley wants to go that way. Not just because he often appears contemptuous of mysticism but also because he suggests so often taking the purported revelations literally. But this raises the question of how we are to take these often conflicting revelations. Secondly it raises the question of how one can be literal without losing the sense of anticipation.
I'm not sure. Just guessing I'd suggest that Nibley's sense of literalism is to raise a kind of Socratic process of inquiry. You'll note that Socrates took most of greek thought of his contemporaries very literally. But only to engage in a process of questioning. That questioning and literalness was his sense of anticipation. For Socrates it at best led to a kind of negative understanding. I think Nibley believes it can lead to more than that, although exactly in what form it isn't clear.
I suspect one might adopt a view that one moves from vagueness to clarity by treating things literally and dealing with them.
Unfortunately this is still mysterious to me and seems a very big weakness in Nibley. I am more inclined to see his focus on literalism in more Socratic rather than in fundamentalist terms though.
Note that this is part of a larger reading club. All the posts in this reading club can be found here.
Nibley lost his mind trying to defend the authenticity of the BofA and the BofM. A brilliant mind that ultimately imploded because of the impossibility of his task.
LOL. I don't think so. Agree or disagree with him. Pick out places he was sloppy. But I've taken classes from the man and he definitely had amazing mind for all his flaws. As for defending the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, there's lots of pretty powerful minds that believe them and try to defend them. Once again agree or disagree with their arguments (and similar ones for the Bible). To to accuse all of them of this problem is amazingly silly.
It's also typically self-serving since it enables one to label all who disagree with one as insane, confused or the like. Thus one needn't address the arguments themselves.
I just found your Nibley reading club, and would enjoy participating and discussing his materials. I have tried to read all that he published, and have been collecting all his sources to the Book of Abraham materials he published. They are LEGION, I assure you, and cost thousands of dollars to photocopy, but I am getting there.
Anyway, I hope this club is still going. And the Three Shrines was one I also disagreed with and rather vehemently in the margins of my copy! It is fascinating to see it all discussed, and weigh the pros and cons. I thought Nibley's own analysis of the supposed separation of Sophic and mantic always slipped over into the other camp, and with the very sources he was trying to use as illustrations of either one camp or the other. There is a lot of slipperiness between the Sophic and Mantic. Nibley, appeared to me to want to see it as black and white. Mantic is such and never sophic, and vice versa. It just didn't seem to me that he made it pan out as such.
Anyway, just my first post in the Nibley reading club.
Best,
Kerry
One part of Nibley's "Three Shrines," that caught my eye immediately was his statement "How then can they or he presume to criticize a religion in which they do not believe - is that not akin to the folly of criticizing a painting which one has not seen or music which one has not heard?" (Ancient State," p. 310)
Now I am not trying to denigrate Nibley. His writings have helped keep me going in Mormonism, as far as that goes. His magnificent brilliance is at time so bright, it is hard to fathom. I am always amazed at his overall large picture of things.
This however, is simply silly, in light of his critiquing of evolution. It was a sad critique in my opinion, because all he ever did with it is show that scientists disagree. Well if *that* is the criteria, then Mormon leaders and scholars are hardly in a good boat either. No one totally agrees about many aspects of Mormonism to this day I might add.
On p. 316, Nibley describes rhetorically that for one to accept the Mantic, one cannot accept the SOphic, and vice versa. This never rang with me either. The injunction in D&C 88:118 militates against this either/or philosophy I would propose. We are commanded to study out of the best books, in all areas and subjects. The bookish, intellectual Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, is precisely what the Mormon *ought* to be, since it is through garnishing our thoughts with great knowledge that we then are able to better receive the Mantic dews from heaven.
Just thinking out loud, and of course, I am more than likely far too naive in my assessments, for which I am grateful this book club exists, so we can discuss them out, and check our assumptions, and learn together.
Best,
kerry
Kerry, I think that is one (among many) points Nibley takes that I have grave troubles with. Although in a more restrained form it actually is a good policy. His whole "literalism" approach, which to me is his Achilles heel, actually probably started in a very sensible fashion. I think that to understand someone, you have to offer what one could call a charity of interpretation.
I recall a discussion with Jim Faulconer on this point regarding philosophers. When reading a philosopher, even one you completely disagree with, you should at least initially read them as if you completely believe them and accept that they know what they are doing. Only in that fashion can you really understand what they are saying. If you start from a perspective of skepticism and doubt, you'll miss huge swaths of assertions.
It really does make a big difference in reading. I think Nibley saw that late 19th and early 20th century scholarship was still partaking of that perhaps less redeeming aspect of European scholarship where scholars looked down their nose at all non-Europeans (and even many Europeans) as stupid, savage and contemptible. Yet, if you want to understand an other culture, you have to embrace it to some extent. You can't go about interpreting everything in terms of your worldview - and especially not with the attitude that it is all worthless.
Now having said that though there are multiple problems. For one, the ideas of most cultures are wrong. (Even our own) For an other, even attempting to think in this fashion is always a failure. We can't fully enter the mind of the other. Our charity of interpretation, despite our best efforts, is always really a kind of will to power in which our cultural expectations undermine our attempts at charitable interpretations.
Put an other way, "literalism" is always problematic because there is always that problem of interpreting what is literal versus what is figurative. It is a division that we can never quite tame.
Now the hermeneutical circle is suppose to help with this. That is, we initially attempt a charitable reading, and then criticize our reading to see where it fails and use that criticism to engage in yet an other new reading. The problem with Nibley is that he tended to cut off that re-examination far too much. Yes he obviously still did it and I think in practice a lot of his "literalism" was at best lip service. But he still wasn't quite as critical as I think he perhaps ought to have been.
Interpreting those failures in light of his own Mantic/Sophic division is interesting.
Hi Clark,
Yes, I suspect you are correct.
The issue of literal verses everything else, I would honestly suspect simply cannot be agreed upon which is literal and which is not, in the scriptures, by any two of us, as far as that goes. Reading Nibley has been such a watershed in so many of our lives in the first place! LOL!
I remember when I first read his wonderful review of Yadin's Bar Kochba documents, how astonished I was at how literal Nibley really did make the BofM statements about their words coming out of the ground, out of the dust! I was so bowled over, it stunned me for days and days.......... In some ways, Nibley's "literalness" has helped me appreciate all the more, the LDS scriptures.
In other ways, such as his comments on mysticism in his book "The World and the Prophets," it left me with the feeling that somehow Nibley was completely missing the boat. His suggestinmg a line of demarcation between mystical and revelatory just isn't accurate whatever, in my opinion. I have written about that on my website......
As you know, I have jumped into studying the Jewish scholars, rabbis, and mystics. There is nothing like them on the planet! Well, it is entirely because of Nibley that I found the Jewish mystics in the first place, and especially the Kabbalah! His mentioning of the Zohar and Cabalah so many times in his "Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri," (which we are getting again this January! YES! Get your orders in now!)astonished me when I realized how extensively he was hinting the Jews really may have something worth looking into. I love the man for his incredible broad ranging interests and flow of ideas, even though I have found through the years I disagree with him on some topics. I have been reading in the major texts of the Jewish Kabbalah, the "Bahir," "Sefer Yetzirah," the "Zohar," etc.
I suspect many of us LDS have troubles adjusting to the parameters of what is literal and what is not. The Kabbalists teach the PADRES idea of scripture, meaning there are various levels to the meanings. In our own BofM, we can see this view Alma 12 I believe, where we are taught that there is a "greater portion" of the word to be had, if we will but look. Those who don't receive the "lesser portion."
Because of Nibley's astonishing works on the BOfM, I have read the text far closer than I ever would have without having Nibley's penetrating insights, as I suspect we all have. One such chapter, 2 Nephi 29 has electrified me more so than usual. Here Nephi places no parameters of limitations on *who* God reveals his word to, and the fact that they SHALL write those words. Nephi includes everyone in every direction, and for good measure, even upon the isles of the sea they shall write what God reveals to them! And all these "words" shall be had by everyone else as they all intermingle, and are shared!
Well, interesting enough, the "WORDS" of the Jews, and everyone else is being had now! Note Nephi did not say "canonical scripture" here. He said WORDS. Well for the first time in over 500 years the *complete* Zohar, the mystical WORDS of the Jews are now avaialable thanks to the Kabbalah Center, and which I am receiving for Christmas, HOT DANG! LOL (Sorry for the enthusiasm, I can't help it, I am so excited to finally get the complete Zohar I am losing sleep over it). I would propose, of course, that all the Jewish words, and writings, such as the "Bahir," and "Sefer Yetzirah," etc., can be included in this broad range. For the first time, the printing press CAN get these words out to ALL peoples! I mean how many MILLIONS of copies of the BofM are now available, the WORDS of the Nephites are definitely going to the entire world.
But my point is this. Is this a literal fulfillment of Nephi's prophecy? I would propose it is. After all, in the introduction to Daniel C. Matt's translation of the Zohar, (the Pritzker edition, a very fine volume!) it is noted that to the Medieval Jews, the Zohar was scripture.....to THEM. Sure and it is their WORDS, to us, according to Nephi. A literalness that is profound to me personally, as profound as the literalness of the words of the Jews coming out of the ground out of the dust in the Bar Kochba documents was to Nibley.
And yet, there *are* spiritual aspects of the scripture that are far and away more important than if they are only meant as literal. So this is a most important, profound, and fascinating discussion on these aspects of the scriptures. And I thank Hugh Nibley again and again for bringing our attention to them all, in such an amazing variety of ways, and such an enormously broad range of literatures from ancient civilizations!
And again, thank you for opening this Nibley discussion group! It is a delight, and I look forward to many wonderful, fruitful, and learning discussions here with everyone.
Best,
kerry
Well, as you know, I probably disagree quite widely over where the line demarcating mysticism from revelation is. Although I fully admit it is a blurry line. You might be interested in my comments at M*.
Thanks for the link Clark. Yes, if anything, now with a few more years of reading under my belt, I believe stronger than when I wrote my article on mysticism, that, in fact, there *has* to be mysticism in Mormonism, or we are in trouble. Each one has to know for himself.
Now granted, I personally am conflating the "orthodox" idea of what mysticism IS, with a thing we Mormon's personally call "testimony," but I think the idea that the mystical revelation is ineffable is a fallacy. Perhaps no so unspeakable in art, as I have maintained. Of course, being an artist, that, I am well aware, is the obvious route I am going to go. It is my subjectivity, without question. But all testimony is subjective, as is revelation. I know, that is another issue, truly.
Soooooooooo, the problem with the church thinking, I think (GRIN) is the supposition that only the prophet is allowed to receive revelation and such. The rest of us ought to follow him. We are so terrified of receiving personal knowledge via revelation, etc., that no one seeks it, or so it seems. I know, I am probably way out of the circle here because I am generalizing on something there is simply no way I can confirm or refute, true.
In my view, I probably do change the..... what I would call "classic" view of mysticism, from a feeling, or an insight, into what we would refer to as a testimony. Mysticism IS testimony for me. That is how I would see it. How can it possibly be anything other?
Nice discussion!
Best,
Kerry
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