Michael wrote that I bring the Classics department perspective in the invisible college of transcendent knowledge. What does that consist of?
My background in official academia:
My training is primarily in the field of Classics, the study of the ancient Greek and Latin languages and literature written in those languages. This primarily involves study of the technical grammar and syntax of the languages, of the figures of speech and rhetorical structures typically employed, of the plots of major works, and of the implied viewpoint and assumptions of an author. In its most basic form this consists of a close reading of the Greek or Latin in order to better explain what a text means. Classical authors typically wrote in a dense and layered way, even without taking into account encoding of altered state cybernetics
For the majority of contemporary Classicists, the literature to be studied primarily consists of ancient Greek literature from c. 800 BC to c. 300 BC and Latin literature from c. 200 BC to c. 200 AD. I take a wider view of this field than most and include anything written in those languages, including works of Late Antiquity, Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, however we should define or understand those periods. Even within official academia I am something of an outsider in this way. A better name for the field may be ‘Classical Languages and Literature’, to de-emphasize ‘pagan’ antiquity in favor of a more natural and balanced focus on the full history of the languages and literature. Contemporary classicists unduly limit themselves in general to non-Christian texts, creating an artificial divide in the ‘western tradition’ that negatively affects both the study of Classical texts, which are assumed to be wholly different from Christian texts, and the study of Christian texts, which are not subjected to close reading and linguistic and literary analysis as works of Greek and Latin literature as often as Classical texts. For many, studying the Classics has become either a refuge from bunk Christianity, similar to the turn to Eastern religions, or a way of avoiding the critical study of Christianity and preserving the just-so story of early Christian history and texts.
I have also intentionally sought out advanced training in the related disciplines of ancient history and archaeology/art history. This is relatively unusual among academics of my generation, who are usually encouraged to hyper-specialize by the demands of graduate training and the academic job market, and by the tendency observable in the 20th-21st centuries of academic fields to wander away from each other into increasingly specialized subfields. I saw these pressures early on and resisted them, wanting to cultivate a fuller picture of the ancient world than the study of language and literature could afford. Although based in the study of language and literature, I embraced the study of history and archaeology/art history.
I remain, however, highly skeptical of these fields, as I am of my own. Besides not recognizing the role of psychedelics, they remain tied to the overly naive literalism of 19th century scholars who founded the modern fields. Contemporary scholars in those fields have not overthrown that literalism to the degree needed, especially to the general public. The fields, as presented to the general public, undergraduate students, and even many graduate students, rely on a degree of certainty about reconstructions of the past that is unfounded and misguided.
Ancient history: the majority of modern narrative histories of antiquity largely follow works of history written by ancient Greeks and Romans themselves. They tend to use those ancient works as the basis for their chronology and history-telling, with some additions or corrections based on non-literary sources. This however continues to ignore work done since the 1970s detailing how the works written by ancient historians were not founded on the principle typical of the modern discipline of history that the past be recorded and depicted as accurately as possible with as much objectivity as possible. Instead ancient history writing was a branch of literature, one that had some relationship with the concept of an accurate representation of the past, but certainly not in the same was as moderns would like. It has been shown again and again that history writers in antiquity were willing to distort events for a wide variety of reasons, from advancing specific political positions, to creating arresting emotional effects, to crafting an account that corresponded with poetic motifs. Moreover, as I have been showing in my ongoing translations from the first history writer, Herodotus, episodes presented as history regularly reflect altered state cybernetics, and so we have to wonder to what extent the representation of events has been modified to conform to altered state cybernetics or whether certain episodes are privileged because they conform to the typical trajectory of altered state experiencing. Modern narrative histories that rely on ancient histories should acknowledge and reflect those dynamics. As it is, they flatten out those dynamics, literalizing them, flattening the inspired air out of them, reducing them to a simple narrative.
Archaeology has a similar problem. Archaeologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries regularly relied upon ancient texts as straightforward descriptions of sites and topography. The authority given to the texts regularly shaped the identification and interpretation of sites and parts of sites. Even though working archaeologists have questioned the authority of texts, some abandoning them off completely, the identifications and interpretations made by their predecessors have often been taken over by guide books, informational signage aimed at tourists, and academics outside of the field, who are unaware of challenges to the initial work or unable to enter into the debate. The presentation of sites to the public is affected issues of local and national identity that are often obscured. A problem for the classical era, it is even more so for early Christian sites, where mythology is repeated as historical fact time and time again. My graduate training in archaeology has resulted in a deep skepticism regarding the way sites are presented. To a certain extent this is out of the hands of practicing archaeologists, and I know many who call for revisions to the identification and chronology of sites, based on more reliable dating techniques than suspect literary texts.
John Bartram is one such scholar, who calls for a revised chronology and identification of ‘early Christian’ sites and texts based not on the received chronology, but on more reliable dating techniques (more of relevance throughout his site).
Classics itself, as the study of classical literature, is not free of these problems of received assumptions in chronology and identification. The field is inconsistent in its assumptions of authorship and authenticity of texts. The 19th century was characterized by a great deal of skepticism regarding the unity, authorship, and authenticity of classical texts. A good deal of that skepticism was rejected primarily because literary scholars wanted whole texts by single authors to analyze. Moreover, the field relies upon unverifiable assumptions regarding the transmission of texts from antiquity to the earliest currently extant edition, which may date to centuries after the believed date of composition.
All my studies in official academia have shown me that we have far less certainty regarding our historical reconstructions of the ancient world than is normally presented. When researching I favor alternating between two approaches – a wild, throw anything against the wall approach to see what sticks and a careful questioning of assumptions and of importations of material from outside the immediate topic under consideration.
Altered state cybernetics are inherent to the human mind, even if expressed and in a certain way experienced differently by different cultures. To truly unlock ancient thinking and writing, learn to recognize those dynamics and metaphors for them.
There is an analogy between my reservations concerning received historical reconstructions of the ancient world and the uncertainty and detachment concerning the reality of the external world, the splitting of representation and represented referent, in the loose state of cognition. This skepticism and reservation is not an abandoning of all possibility of knowledge about the past, as recommended by some post-modernist thinkers, but rather a detachment and flexibility regarding our reconstructions and assumptions. Researchers must be more open than they have been to questioning wide swaths of assumptions at once, not simply manipulating individual pieces of evidence at a time.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
12 July, 2016 at 23:40
cyberdisciple
Classicists have a problem throwing authorities out. Because so much time is spent explicating what a text means, those texts tend to achieve a canonical and authoritative place in the mind of the researcher. Many who are drawn to the study of the Classics are drawn to it by the concept of studying the ‘great’, ‘canonical’, and ‘authoritative’ authors.
13 July, 2016 at 10:56
NS
Regarding your statement below; do you now cite (give credit to) the Egodeath Theory for interpretations of metaphor from ancient thinking in your written interpretations? It would seem mandatory to do so since the Egodeath Theory is the original source of interpreting altered state cybernetics as related to mythology of antiquity and has created a template, so to speak, of interpretations, as a guide/learning tool.
NS
14 July, 2016 at 11:31
cyberdisciple
I do not cite the Egodeath Theory in my official academic writing. Classicists do not accept it because it does not come from a peer-reviewed academic publisher. Instead I build up the case for metaphorical interpretation using accepted studies, whichever apply to the topic I’m writing about. Posting here allows me to self-publish at a faster rate because here I assume the Egodeath Theory, and do not have to either suppress mention of the entheogenic altered state nor build up the case for metaphorical reference to eternalism cybernetics using a hodge-podge of officially accepted studies.
14 July, 2016 at 22:10
NS
Thanks for sharing that. I’ve envisioned balance as one internal foot in ASC and the other in OSC and just maybe that’s exactly what you are living. Giving credit through ‘assumption’ is an interesting concept especially when proof is in the writings…
15 July, 2016 at 22:31
cyberdisciple
I have not thought it necessary to cite the Egodeath Theory each time I post a new interpretation. My pages in the header ‘Read First’ and ‘Biography’ indicate my debt to the Egodeath Theory, as does the podcast episode dedicated to my background with the Egodeath Theory. The whole site, even my name, is a citation of the Egodeath Theory.
It would be useful to have a complete set of mythemes decoded at Egodeath.com and Egodeath yahoo group, but it’s easy enough to search those sites.
I have contributed to the identification of some new mythemes, though I am not interested in establishing priority of discovery, merely to contribute. In that way I am like a graduate student researcher in the lab of Professor Loose Cog or like a member of a philosophical school who attributes everything to the founder of the school.
15 July, 2016 at 22:33
cyberdisciple
Can’t know what a writer believes: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/conversations/messages/8223
Nearly all of ancient Greek, Roman, Christian texts derive from medieval manuscripts. There are a few papyrus scraps, dug out of the sands of Egypt and recovered sites buried by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, that can be dated earlier.
15 July, 2016 at 22:36
cyberdisciple
An earlier post on my disappointment in the humanities: https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/the-humanities-did-not-and-could-not-have-produced-edt/
17 July, 2016 at 13:00
cyberdisciple
Michael reworks my post here, bringing it into line with the concept of ‘High’ vs. ‘Low’ fields, making explicit the focus on Metaphorical Entheogenic Eternalism, and schematizing it for quick survey, as opposed to my narrative, confessional style: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/egodeath/conversations/messages/8227