Orwell
|
We are guilty of double
think (a concept which Barfield borrows, of course, from George
Orwell's
1984 [1949]) whenever we hold two completely incompatible,
indeed contradictory, ideas in the mind simultaneously without noting the
contradiction. Barfield finds double think prominently displayed in our
present tendency to "think that what physics tells us is true, is true
when we are studying physics, and untrue when we are studying something
else" (SA 38).
"Our age," Barfield
observes, "is characterized by a variety of generalizing theories, each
of which is applied to everything in the universe except itself, and each
of which would fall to the ground if it were so applied since it at once
becomes apparent that it has been busy sawing off the only possible branch
on which it could have been sitting" (OC 603). "It is a failing common
to a good many contemporary metaphysical theories," he had noted as early
as Poetic Diction,
that they
can be applied to all things except themselves but that, when so applied,
they extinguish themselves; and experience has taught me that, when men
are really attached to such a theory, most of them will, after this has
been pointed out to them, continue nevertheless to apply it to all things
(except itself). (16)
Nowhere is double think
more apparent than in the epistemology of the sciences, as Barfield explains
in Worlds Apart. For scientists
have now
got hold of this method of knowledge, which by definition, excludes man
and all his values from the object to be known and they have found it very
useful. But not content with this, they go on insisting that the method
itself has a human value and enhances human dignity. They are like children
thinking they can have it both ways. First, they insist on cutting out
awe and reverence and wisdom and substituting sophistication as the goal
of knowledge; and then they talk about this method of theirs with reverence
and awe and expect us to look up to them as wise and venerable men. (22)
Take the example of
physics:
Having established
the gulf which yawns between the atomic physical structure of nature and
the appearances of the physical world, it is of course possible, it is
certainly usual--if we are physicists, to continue undisturbed with our
investigations of the unappearing atomic structure, and, if we are philosophers,
to leave it at that, being content with the metaphysical curiosity we have
produced. It is usual; but it is not really necessary to do so. We could,
if we chose, take it seriously; we could keep the gulf steadily in sight,
instead of instantly forgetting all about it again, and see what effect
that has on our knowledge of other things, such as the evolution of nature
and of man himself. (SA 12-13)
In one sense, double
think is simply the product of intellectual laziness. After all, "It is
much more convenient, when we are listening to the geologist, to forget
what we learnt about matter from the chemist and the physicist" (SA
23). But double think has deeper roots; it underpins the idolatry
of the age. Abandonment of double think will therefore prove to be a decisive
step in the evolution of consciousness.
The way
out may still lie through and not back. The best way of escape from deep-rooted
error has often proved to be, to pursue it to its logical conclusion, that
is, to go on taking it seriously and see what follows. Only we must be
consistent. We must take it really seriously. We must give up double-think.
For inconsistent and slovenly thought can abide indefinitely in error without
any feeling of discomfort. (SA 57)
See in particular
Worlds
Apart, passim,
Saving the Appearances, Chaps. VII, VIII. |
|