Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 >> " some ideas? " How about, the whole blueprint?<< --Do you really think that Classical authors, given today's understanding of the mind, of evolution and history, would leave their work unchanged? The assumption that any dead author would not update his/her views if they were still living is myopic. Some of their ideas would be more or less the same, some would be updated, and some would be changed entirely. You still have to decide which, however much you idealize the author. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 >> " some ideas? " How about, the whole blueprint?<< --Do you really think that Classical authors, given today's understanding of the mind, of evolution and history, would leave their work unchanged? The assumption that any dead author would not update his/her views if they were still living is myopic. Some of their ideas would be more or less the same, some would be updated, and some would be changed entirely. You still have to decide which, however much you idealize the author. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 you said: " just don't think science in general is a source of spiritual decay I would add...As long as the scientists realized that in the end all they can do is repeat, repeat and repeat their experiments to heighten the probability of their conclusions, and don't expect their rationalism to infect all sides of knowledge and other matters. The hubris of those who know a lot , and think science answers all questions, can be a temptation, I would think, unless in the end they were as humble as Einstein. My personal view after listening to quite a few of both types. Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 I would suggest some values never change and either does human nature. Do Beauty, Truth or other abstracts change change? Doctors would still be better if they all believed in " first do no harm " ., Neither theologians nor psychologists can do better than the Greek plays for finding the one fatal flaw in their heroes. Augustine's Confession is still apropos. I think we still have a lot to learn from the 'classics' which are called " classics " because they are timeless. The same temptations, the same loneliness, the same feelings ,the same relationship problems is still among us moderns as it was in 400 CBE or in the ancient times before the common era. Does one idealize the author or find something of value in his writings? Do we moderns really think we understand human nature, or the ethics of a collective, or the mystery of G-d, any better than we did in ancient times? Of course again, I hurry to say, that this is all my opinion purely based on my experiences. Toni wrote: > >> " some ideas? " How about, the whole blueprint?<< > > --Do you really think that Classical authors, given > today's understanding of the mind, of evolution and > history, would leave their work unchanged? The > assumption that any dead author would not update > his/her views if they were still living is myopic. > Some of their ideas would be more or less the same, > some would be updated, and some would be changed > entirely. You still have to decide which, however much > you idealize the author. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 Dear Dan At 09:54 PM 3/25/02 -0700, you wrote: >Galileo was either a selfish bastard, or a fool. Either way, the Church was, imo, perfectly correct to try to shut him up. The effort failed - it was >too little, too late - but it was a noble effort anyway. N: Like many, if not most on two lists, I find your position on this ever so puzzling. For me the puzzlement is that you don't reevaluate your views on wisdom, values and God. How is it that you view Galileo as either a 'selfish bastard' or a fool? What is it that he did that you think he should have been able to predict the undesirable outcome(s)? If you subscribe to Creationism, how is it that you suppose the freewill opterative, in Eden and now in regard to technology is not within the choices he allows us? Is not part of his univeral plan? (Maybe Its would be more appropriate.) How is it any more outrageous that we use technology to wage war than it is that species generally come and go? I don't think your example of teenager, whiskey and cars quite works on a cosmic plane. It seems to me that whatever we designate as God is quite willing that we, as a species, should learn through experience, even experience that is deadly to the individual entity. Do you disagree with the above? You express some liking of the Greeks and their gods, most, if not all of whom went right into battle with humanity in the Trojan conflict. The Trojan horse was a perfectly good example of technology. Their Elesian Fields were the happy home of great warriors. Since I Do value the individual, in excepting this world view I'm more comfortable with the concept of reincarnation. For all of that, I've got no certitude about it. So my notions of God must include the possibility that the force we so name is perfectly willing to see individuals wasted in the name of progress. Like most of Western religion I'm not real happy with this. Eastern religion seems to me more realistic in its acceptance of how thing Are, without clinging to unrealistic personal evaluations. Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the God force? Blessings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 Dear Dan, At 11:31 PM 3/25/02 -0700, you wrote: >> > >He either knew what the social/political consequences of the broadcasting of his evidence of the heliocentric nature of the solar system would be, or >he did not. If he did not, he was a fool, as it should have been perfectly obvious what the consequences would be. N: I've noticed before that you seem to be quite clear in your own mind as to the...evil?...disadvantages?... of this. For what? The realization of some [more] ideal societal organization? > >I don't subscribe to creationism. I have no real opinion on the origin of species. I don't believe in " free will " in the Christian sense. I believe in >reason, and that human action can be guided by reason, but that's not the same thing. N: No. What definition of reason do you use? Might it be more akin to logic? The slow building of world view through attention to cause and effect? A mind-life without passion? A little joyless even? Guess I don't know what the Christian sense of " free will " is. I was speaking of the individual's ability to chose. [Lots of factors enter into how much actual 'freedom' is available of course] >Do you feel that humanity is just another species, whose obliteration is of no more imprtance than that of the dinosaurs? N: This one seems to me to be the core of the issue. But I must ask 'important ' in what way? To Me personally it's survial is more important than the dyna...[interesting typo] dinosaurs. And I'd guess to most humans. In the overall scheme of things I not so much inclined to believe it is. There's a fair probabily I won't be around to worry about it when and if we go extinct. Perhaps some unmet decendants will be. If I am around, likely I'll go extinct with the rest. But then personally I will anyway likely. I wonder if there is a dinosaur heaven? ... I wonder if they served any purpose or were just a limb on the tree that led to nothing. A failed experiment of nature. If they were, why shouldn't we be? That's really not my expectation. But as you noted earlier, earth really isn't the center of even this solar system. Nor do I feel much conviction that we are the center of anything else except our own attention. Maybe some of my personal puzzlement about your position is that I'm interested in what I and other think/believe/speculate about the overall scheme of things. While you are interested in what others and above all yourself think/believe about what values can best guard humanity. Does that strike you as a fair statement? If so, I still find myself wondering what you see as the goal of this 'best' for future generations. If we have already reached the penacle in the development of thought and values, then all that's left to do is to put them into practice and enjoy the fruits in some sort of 'ideal' but stagnant society? Or do you see anything further as desireable? I guess looking at it from this perspective I can understand why you say that the study of humanity and politics are one and the same -- a statement which from any other view than this -- I'd say narrow one -- would strike me as absolute hooey. Dan, do you regard yourself as a person lacking in a spirit of adventure? I wonder what you use your Intuition for. Not as far as I can tell , to speculate. >> >> Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the God force? > >As I said, I know a little about the gods, but really nothing about God. I have no opinion about the God force - I don't even know if there is such a >thing. N: You say you are not an antheist. It appears I am making some mistake in my view of what that means. Considering any nature of God one can imagine, it isn't reasonable - unless one believes the other is a fanatic - to enquire what one knows. I thought that since you feel positively about the church and it's management, and since one presumes that the church has something to do with God - in addition to its dabbling in human politics -- I think you might have developed some feeling for the nature of God. You've said you go to church. Do you just go through the motions of service - and prayer? - without any sense of that Other? Blessings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear Anand, Enver Hoxha is the late tyrant of Albania, Mother Theresa's home country. Lots of info on him on the internet. I don't know if Mother Theresa wanted to forgive him, or what-is-it. If so, there's a lesson there. Best regards, Dan Watkins aani19096 wrote: > Dear Dan, > > > > all too many ways. Mother Theresa was an exception - > > > and for that she will likely become a saint > > > eventually. > > > > Mother Theresa put a wreath on Enver Hoxha's grave. Don't get me > started > > on Mother Theresa. > > Who was Enver Hoxha? I'd really like to hear more on this. > Please " get started " , your time permitting. > > Thanks, > - Anand > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear Dan, You write: > I doubt that we could get back there from here, short of some tremendous >cataclysm - and even that would be no guarantee. I do think, though, that we > " " We might prevent things from getting worse, and even now recall what it >is to be human. N: I'd suggest you mean 'what it Was to be human'. Since, sometimes unforturately, I don't see how one can avoid believing that anything a person does to be 'human'. Still, in a way, I like your refer as I've often remark to myself how tiresome it was that many people use the word 'humanity' as represent the lowest of values. We do seem to have moved away from the position of thinking of 'man' [without implied gender] as half human and half angel... without nobility. > We can > remember the First Law of Holes - which is, when you find yourself in a >hole, stop digging. N: Cute. And something the addicted forget. > > I try not to take a utilitarian view of human beings ( a very modern, >Machiavellian view to which we have all been habituated). The question for the > classics would not be, I think, What good are the people?, but, To what >degree can the people be made good, and how? N: Hmmm... Don't seem to recall a lot of that about women or the 'lower classes'. >>> >>> Huh? Who lived a more joyful and erotic life than Socrates? How much more >>>joy could one human being stand? >> N: I mentioned your view above to Jim, the Presbyterian minister, yesterday. He ['d] said that the Bible writers where greatly influenced by Platonic thought wherein all pertaining to the body was considered... What was his word choice...? Bad? Inferior? Something like that. Thought you might like to comment... He's been in a congregational whirlwind over a chapter in his book about homosexuality. Another book has been mentioned which debunks the common view that homos. was much practiced among the Greeks. And even lauded. I haven't tried to get this book as it was oddly published. Sorry, I don't recall any of its bibliographic info. >>>> >>>> " " I was >>>> speaking of the individual's ability to chose. >>> >>> I think that choice implies deliberation, which entails reason. N: I believe that many of the animals 'reason'. So I suppose they 'chose'. Seems to me this is implied in the '100th monkey.' The latter bears on my agreement with Jung that each of our attempt to 'steal' bits of the Unc for consciousness changes the Collective. Your yearning toward the classic period seem to bely any more recent success in this. > I just meant an ability to weigh alternatives in the light of some >knowledge of the good, but maybe that does indeed require the transcendent > function. > N: Yes. I feel that relying only on one or two functions in this endeavor leads to imbalance in results. And 'balance' seems to me the key to valid weighing. >> >>> I'm interested in discovering what the human virtues are, and >>>their natural hierarchy, I guess. >> >> I'd suppose others are also, yet >> most of us [here at least] appear to come to conclusion far different from yours. > > Maybe we've read different books - although, to be honest, I think that my >argument could be derived strictly from Jung, so I don't know. It seems to > me that many Jungians reject large parts of Jung's teaching. Sometimes his >avowed enemies see him more clearly than his declared friends, imo. N: Even those schooled in Jung don't seem to come to your conclusions. The same info goes into the hopper, but a different product immerges. As to rejecting large parts of his teaching, in my observation few have read C.G. Jung Speaking. And it's my impression that quotes from that book must be regarded very cautiously. Many are more extemorarious than his major works, hence more likely to show moods of the moment. Also he's notorious for bending his beliefs for his audience. Stuff that appears in Ladies Home Journal or any other popular press surely is diffent from CW in thrust. > > Precisely. Thank you. When I speak of the Star Trek future, I do not refer >to human beings' life in space as portrayed in the Star Trek myth - I refer > to the hell that they have created on earth. Star Trek characters will >sometimes boast that they have wiped out poverty, inequality and war on earth, > and that they have gone a long way to wiping out disease - they don't say >it, but they have obviously also gotten rid of religion as well. > > N: My email program is omitting again. As I recall you mention that having created this situation their main thrust was to get away from it. There I feel that you generalize in an unwarranted way. There have always been physically adventurous souls among us. No reason the future should be different. That the 'camera' choses these to follow is of no surprise. I've always presumed, and even seen in some episodes, that the Earth remained filled with mostly contented folk. Of course this is all in the writers' fantasy of 'goodness' to which you don't seem to subscribe. >> > The classical goal appears to have been to learn to live in accordance >with nature and/or divine law - something that pre-dates and transcends man > N: For me this view makes little sense. I don't see where we are now as 'against nature'. But merely as an extension of the 'monkeys with tools' observations. By definition humans can't progress against nature. Though it seems true that in modern times in us nature is at odds with herself. I doubt this is any more true now than in the instance of the dinosaur extinction. We don't usually deem all the 'acts of nature' to be 'good'. Earthquakes are of nature, but think of the poor persecuted Afghans. I recently ran into the theory of a 'just universe', wherein all that happens is deserved. If this is so - which I don't believe - then 'thankyouverymuch', I'll take a little mercy with my justice. But then what can you expect? I don't drink my coffee black. >> > I'm against any effort to apply any policy universally. N: Are you? >That said, I don't >have anything against people being all they can be... is an army slogan, and the army is (or was) famous for breaking > people down and building them up again in a very systematic way. N: I don't see much difference in the army way and the RC way. > >> Of what aspect of Buddhism are you >> thinking? > > Not of any. I was just citing Nietzsche. I don't know enough about >Buddhism myself to comment. N: But you may know enough of Nietzsche to tell us what he objects to in Buddhism? Or perhaps he didn't elaborate sufficiently... >> >> I'm surprised to learn you >> consider yourself 'fat'. > > 5' 11 " , 213 pounds. N: A bit plump perhaps. What a surprise. Did you know that the first comple years I 'knew' you, I imagined you as a cadaverous 70, who probably worked as some sort of 'travelling salesman'? <g> > >> N: I, too, preceive it [RC] as having strayed very far from its origins, if >> you'd agree with that? > > I don't know - what is its origin? Does it come from God, or is it a work >of man? N: However you'd answer your own question, I'm thinking of the teachings of Jesus as origin. Many quibbles on the accuracy of how they're come down to us, of course. >> >> N: So you don't attend to 'feelings' [however you're using the term] as to be included when investigating virtue? Regardless of how many share them? > Seems to me that a great deal of information can be gathered by the observation of emotion in humanity as to what we are and where 'the good' may lie. Think of sexuality leading to emotional bonding, for example. Blessings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear Dan: a dilly of a Jung quote: " The great thing is the now and here, this is the eternal moment, and if you do not realize it, you have missed the best part of life,you have missed the realization that you were once the carrier of a life contained between the poles of the unimaginable future and an unimaginable remote past. Millions of years and untold millions of ancestors have worked up to this moment and you are the fulfillment of this moment. Anything that is past is no longer reality, anything that will be in not yet reality,reality is now.To look at life as a mere preparation for things to come is as if you could not enjoy your meal while it is hot. That is the disease really of our time, everybody is concerned about the future; one admits that now thing are bad, so all the more one tries to jump out of them, and therefore they never improve. One should take each moment as the eternal moment as if nothing were ever going to change, not anticipating a faraway future. For the future always grows out of that which " is " and it cannot be sound if it groves in a morbid soil, if we are morbid and don't feel the here and now, then we actually will build a sickly future .......Therefore in psychology , in the life of an individual it is of the greatest importance that we never think of the merely now, with the hope of something coming in the future. You can be sure it will never come when you think like that. You must live your life in such a spirit that you make it every moment the best of the possibilities. " JungCW 6 pp185. Toni > >How might the world have been > > better had these other points of view been allowed to > > unfold and either flourish or perish on their own > > merits? > > Well, you see how, now. How do you like it so far? I'm not too > impressed. > > Again, by whose standards is one to judge " decent " > > order and " worse " . How might the last 500 years been > > different (for the " better " had the church immediately > > embraced Galileo's ideas rather than been dragged > > kicking and screaming into the age of science? How > > much better for the future of Christianity might that > > have been? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear , wrote: > Dear Dan, > > N: I'd suggest you mean 'what it Was to be human'. No, I mean " is. " Human nature has not, imo, changed in the course of recorded history. > Since, sometimes > unforturately, I don't see how one can avoid believing that anything a > person does to be 'human'. One can avoid it by considering a teleological view of nature. Absent that, there is no nature - the term " nature " just becomes shorthand for " the way things are. " > (snip) > > > > > I try not to take a utilitarian view of human beings ( a very modern, > >Machiavellian view to which we have all been habituated). The question for > the > > classics would not be, I think, What good are the people?, but, To what > >degree can the people be made good, and how? > > N: Hmmm... Don't seem to recall a lot of that about women or the 'lower > classes'. ? Quite a bit, in the books I mentioned. > > >>> > >>> Huh? Who lived a more joyful and erotic life than Socrates? How much more > >>>joy could one human being stand? > >> > N: I mentioned your view above to Jim, the Presbyterian minister, > yesterday. He ['d] said that the Bible writers where greatly influenced by > Platonic thought wherein all pertaining to the body was considered... What > was his word choice...? Bad? Inferior? Something like that. Thought you > might like to comment... I don't think Platonic thought is " anti-body " at all - I guess people get that notion because of the whole Platonic Ideas things - but the teaching about the forms, whatever it was, does not appear to me to have been " spiritual " or anti-carnal. That is, perhaps, a Christian distortion. Plato's writings appear to me to be very down to earth. > > (snip) > > > > > Maybe we've read different books - although, to be honest, I think that my > >argument could be derived strictly from Jung, so I don't know. It seems to > > me that many Jungians reject large parts of Jung's teaching. Sometimes his > >avowed enemies see him more clearly than his declared friends, imo. > > N: Even those schooled in Jung don't seem to come to your conclusions. The > same info goes into the hopper, but a different product immerges. > As to rejecting large parts of his teaching, in my observation few have > read C.G. Jung Speaking. Everybody has his or her favorite Jung text, I guess, and CJ Jung Speaking happens to be mine. I think one can get a very clear synopsis of the whole of Jung's thought just from that one volume. But Jung expresses many of the same ideas to which I refer elsewhere - the Nietzsche lectures, for instance. They were not originally intended for public consumption, and Jung is perhaps less guarded in his speech there than elsewhere. > And it's my impression that quotes from that book > must be regarded very cautiously. Many are more extemorarious than his > major works, hence more likely to show moods of the moment. Also he's > notorious for bending his beliefs for his audience. Precisely. Speaking popularly, he is likely to advance opinions that he thinks should be popular. All the more reason to give weight to the " political " views that he expresses in a popular public forum, imo. > Stuff that appears in > Ladies Home Journal or any other popular press surely is diffent from CW in > thrust. Different in depth perhaps. > > > > > There I feel that you generalize in an unwarranted way. There have always > been physically adventurous souls among us. No reason the future should be > different. That the 'camera' choses these to follow is of no surprise. > I've always presumed, and even seen in some episodes, that the Earth > remained filled with mostly contented folk. Why should we pander to - still less bring about - what Nietzsche calls a " wretched contentment? " > Of course this is all in the > writers' fantasy of 'goodness' to which you don't seem to subscribe. It's more than just the writers' fantasy - it obviously resonates. Hence it is important to pay attention to - this is what we might be looking at in actuality a few years down the line if we're not careful. > > >> > > The classical goal appears to have been to learn to live in accordance > >with nature and/or divine law - something that pre-dates and transcends man > > > N: For me this view makes little sense. I don't see where we are now as > 'against nature'. But merely as an extension of the 'monkeys with tools' > observations. By definition humans can't progress against nature. Only by the modern definition of nature. Science killed Nature in an effort to escape her bonds, and the bonds of civilization. > Though > it seems true that in modern times in us nature is at odds with herself. I > doubt this is any more true now than in the instance of the dinosaur > extinction. We don't usually deem all the 'acts of nature' to be 'good'. > Earthquakes are of nature, but think of the poor persecuted Afghans. Don't we usually call those " acts of God? " What matters for human beings, I think, is human nature and an understanding thereof. > > I recently ran into the theory of a 'just universe', wherein all that > happens is deserved. If this is so - which I don't believe - then > 'thankyouverymuch', I'll take a little mercy with my justice. But then > what can you expect? I don't drink my coffee black. > >> > > I'm against any effort to apply any policy universally. > > N: Are you? Yes. Let 10,000 flowers bloom ;-). > > > > > N: I don't see much difference in the army way and the RC way. Their ends are different - but I don't necessarily have any big gripe agains the RC way; it just doesn't agree with me, that's all. > > > > >> Of what aspect of Buddhism are you > >> thinking? > > > > Not of any. I was just citing Nietzsche. I don't know enough about > >Buddhism myself to comment. Nietzsche thought that both were escapist, anti-life, anti-will and - most important - empowering of the many at the expense of the few and the best. Christianity, in particular, is for Nietzsche the empowerment and the revenge of the inferior. > > > N: But you may know enough of Nietzsche to tell us what he objects to in > Buddhism? Or perhaps he didn't elaborate sufficiently... > >> > >> I'm surprised to learn you > >> consider yourself 'fat'. > > > > 5' 11 " , 213 pounds. > > N: A bit plump perhaps. What a surprise. Did you know that the first > comple years I 'knew' you, I imagined you as a cadaverous 70, who probably > worked as some sort of 'travelling salesman'? <g> People who meet me on-line often imagine me as elderly, I find. I'm sure I can't imagine why. > > > > >> N: I, too, preceive it [RC] as having strayed very far from its origins, if > >> you'd agree with that? > > > > I don't know - what is its origin? Does it come from God, or is it a work > >of man? > > N: However you'd answer your own question, I'm thinking of the teachings of > Jesus as origin. (snip) I find the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible to be rather silly - hence the need for the Church to " fix " them over the centuries. Christianity had to be brought down from the mountain top in order to live in the city. Best regards, Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 >>Yes, no doubt the Church was interested in preserving its own power, but I don't assume that its motives were entirely selfish for all that. Its charge was to protect the people, and it tried.<< --But you assume Galileo's motives were selfish. What if Christ himself would have sided with Galileo? Is it right to preserve an order based on untruth at the expense of a potential order based on truth? In my view, any group that takes it upon itself to " protect " people from the truth, is setting itself up for a fall. That's something like a natural law. The truth can't be suppressed forever, and the longer it is held back, the harder the fall. >>Imo no, because the secular state is bad. I don't believe that any truly secular regime can long remain decent and free.<< --The secular state is bad? I'm not sure I'd view the secular nations as " bad " compared to the remaining nations where one religion is held above all others. You would also have to denounce capitalism, since free trade inevitably leads to exchange of ideas and secularization. It is always possible to (temporarily) preserve an organization against encroaching reality. The Catholic church managed to suppress the potentially devastating pedophilia scandal, at the expense of the victims. When a victim says " It happened! " and the organization says " sorry, we can't admit that because it might harm the group " it becomes an insane and dysfunctional system for everyone involved. Those in power will always believe that the truth (when it makes them look bad) is a threat to the security of the state. Are you prepared to let them make that judgement? Or are there certain authorities you feel are uniquely qualified to hold back truth for the sake of order? Your capitulation to authority is disturbing and to me signifies a lack of integration of opposites in your own psychology. No offense, __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 > And why do you suppose that it was even necessary for > such a confrontation in the first place? For the reason already given. It was a matter of trying to save the medieval " world. " << -In other words, hubris. If Alice is right, restoring the sun to the center of the solar system was symbolic of restoring Christ, rather than ego, to the center of consciousness. Good thing the ego didn't win, if that's the case. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear Dan; DKW wrote: " I find the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible to be rather silly - hence the need for the Church to " fix " them over the centuries. Christianity had to be brought down from the mountain top in order to live in the city. How much scholarly work have you read on the sayings of Jesus in the Bible? Some scholars believe the only authentic word...something only Jesus could have said was , " Abba, " because the usual approach to addressing The Master of the Universe was much more formal and not at all familiar, like daddy. Having said that, there is still much to be found that was original in his lifetime and then was assumed by those who came after. His whole approach to the Father, for one. The Church fixed the text to make itself the successor " Thou art and on this rock I build my church " for example. ( Jesus had no intention of building a church,) but he might have made a pun with 's name. There are others to strengthen the churches' claim . But many are original in time to his time and other Jewish writings of his time. No one else would have dared make some of his claims, others are straight out of the Old Testament. In any case I would not personally call them " silly " . Turning the other cheek and loving your distant neighbor may be very hard to follow, but silly? I think he purposely, or those who quoted him years later, wanted to show the complete opposite of the then common habits and way of life of the people. He hardly would have become the great force in western civilization by the scheming of the early church alone.. I think " silly " is so very inappropriate, but that of course is my personal opinion. New streams of thought from gnostic, mystery religions and groups as the Essenes preached in a similar vein. It was the right time, and not for silliness. Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dan wrote: " I find the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible to be rather silly - hence the need for the Church to " fix " them over the centuries. Christianity had to be brought down from the mountain top in order to live in the city. " Once again Dan, I can't tell if you just state these things to get the curious to bite and ask more or if you really believe the stuff that you write. Perhaps you would care to elaborate futher. But you appear to be a person who desires to be taken seriously. In any case, the above statement is quite fantastic, especially for an intelligent person to make. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that Jesus (as presented in the Bible or otherwise) was " silly " - indicating that it's meaning doesn't deserve to be heeded or valued. So when I read statements like the above, I am left to wonder if the cause behind the words I read is gross misunderstanding (which is possible) or perhaps a kind of intellectual arrogance that is unable to connect with anything but the very literal, or a worldview that is based upon a unique/archane/obtuse system of interpreting life - or some combination of the above. I do, however think that his message has been badly misinterpreted by those entrusted with the transmission of his core meaning - often through mistranslation and by intentional exclusion of important texts of the classical Apocrypha. This interpretation over many centuries, was motivated by many factors, not the least of which was a manipulative, abusive, paranoid power drive - one that (your words would seem to indicate) you applaud in some way. In the process of " fixing " the message (via an exoteric interpretation/mistranslation of the meaning of his words)the church(es) certainly took the words from the mountaintop to the city, but in the process, have also disconnected them with much of the Divinity that had inspired their authors (IMO). Perhaps it is time to return to the mountaintop, now that the cities are becoming grotesquely disconnected and dysfunctional in the Modern age. The church has so blended with the Cartesian/Newtonian paradym that it has abrogated its role of spiritual leadership in many injurious ways. The cities are now filled with millions of people who crave the mountaintop (metaphorically speaking), not realizing that an esoteric understanding of the Christian faith (the tradition of which is largely lost) urges one to find it " within " (as the word esoteric implies), rather than " without " , as the church has traditionally taught. If this is a restatement of your idea, then perhaps we are in agreement. But this relates not to the words of Jesus as " silly " (in the case of Christianity), but to the monolythic (and, in view, incomplete) interpretation of them. Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear , wrote: > > > --But you assume Galileo's motives were selfish. What > if Christ himself would have sided with Galileo? Well, what if he would have? It seems odd to me that Jesus might wish to see man removed from his place as God's favored child at the center of the cosmos, but maybe he would have. I don't look to Jesus as an authority. > Is it > right to preserve an order based on untruth at the > expense of a potential order based on truth? The order based on truth is the rule of the wise. How likely is that to come to pass? Is it even possible? In the " real world, " philosophy is concerned with the truth, but political orders are based on shared opinion - which shared opinion may or may not actaully be true. Yes, it's right - indeed, I expect it's inevitable if there is to be any order. > In my > view, any group that takes it upon itself to " protect " > people from the truth, is setting itself up for a > fall. It's a precarious position, that's for sure. > That's something like a natural law. The truth > can't be suppressed forever, and the longer it is held > back, the harder the fall. This seems, again, like Hegelian historicism to me, and I don't really see the evidence for it. > > > >>Imo no, because the secular state is bad. I don't > believe that any truly secular regime can long > remain decent and free.<< > > --The secular state is bad? I'm not sure I'd view the > secular nations as " bad " compared to the remaining > nations where one religion is held above all others. > You would also have to denounce capitalism, since free > trade inevitably leads to exchange of ideas and > secularization. The nations that have tried to be fully secular have turned out to be horrific tyrannies, and the ones still left are temporizing and/or failing. As long as you have known me, you have never seen me be all " rah-rah " for capitalism. It is the best - in the sense of the least bad - alternative currently available, but there are big, big problems with it. What socialism promised, capitalism might well yet deliver. > > > It is always possible to (temporarily) preserve an > organization against encroaching reality. 2000 years you're calling temporary? Well, strictly speaking I guess all human institutions are temporary. > The Catholic > church managed to suppress the potentially devastating > pedophilia scandal, at the expense of the victims. > When a victim says " It happened! " and the organization > says " sorry, we can't admit that because it might harm > the group " it becomes an insane and dysfunctional > system for everyone involved. Of course, the homosexuality scandal in the Church now is not comparable to the Gallileo affair. In the latter case, the Church was trying to protect the people - in the former, it is practicing spin control and covering its own behind, I agree. And an ugly sight it is, too. > > > Those in power will always believe that the truth > (when it makes them look bad) is a threat to the > security of the state. Are you prepared to let them > make that judgement? Or are there certain authorities > you feel are uniquely qualified to hold back truth for > the sake of order? Authority must rest in someone (and I sure don't trust 'the people' more than I trust other sources of authority - " The levelling down of the masses through suppression of the aristocratic or hierarchical structure natural to a community is bound, sooner or later, to lead to disaster " CGJ, CW 17, 248). Who are qualified? " The true leaders of mankind always those who are capable of self reflection, and who relieve the dead weight of the masses at least of their own weight.... " CGJ, CW 10, 326. > Your capitulation to authority is > disturbing and to me signifies a lack of integration > of opposites in your own psychology. No offense, None taken. Your reluctance to question the collective representations characteristic of modern liberal democracy with which you were broug up to me signifies a lack of conscious differentiation from the collective. No offense. > The rediscov of >a heliocentric solar system marked a paradigm >shift for the Renaissance,n >makes it easier to underst the Kingdom of Heaven >is metaphorically truly w/in >us. our inner sun=Self/div guest.<< >--That selfish Galileo! >In other words, hubris. If Alice is right, restoring >the sun to the center of the solar system was symbolic >of restoring Christ, rather than ego, to the center of >consciousness. Good thing the ego didn't win, if >that's the case. With due respect to Alice and to you, I don't think that's what Galileo intended, and, more to the point, I don't think that's how things have worked out in fact. Do people on the whole feel closer to God, more in touch with the divine guest, now than 700 years ago? Not obviously, at least not in the " developed " world: " As scientific understanding has grown, so our world has become dehumanized. Man feels himself isolated in the cosmos, because he is no longer involved in nature and has lost his emotional 'unconscious identity' with natural phenomena. These have slowly lost their symbolic implications " (CGJ, _Man and His Symbols_, p. 95). " How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe, circle by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence. Such a life no longer seems real to us, even in our dreams. Science has long ago torn this lovely veil to shreds. That age lies as far behind as childhood, when ones own father was unquestionably the handsomest and strongest man on earth. Modern man has lost all the metaphysical certainties of his medieval brother, and set up in their place the ideals of material security, general welfare, and humanitarianism. But anyone who has still managed to preserve these ideals unshaken must have been injected with a more than ordinary dose of optimism " (CGJ, CW 10, 162-163). Toni wrote: >Turning the other cheek and loving your distant neighbor may be very hard to follow, but silly? Very silly indeed, IMO. Love your enemy? Turn the other cheek? Perhaps there is some esoteric meaning to this teaching that I do not follow or do not see. However, as a political teaching, it would, if actually put into action, guarantee the destruction of the weak by the strong. It would be the Amish against Stalin. Hence the church's need to incorporate, for example, the doctrine of the just war. And one must ask, if Christ was speaking esoterically, why did he give that particular speech in that most public places. > I >think he purposely, or those who quoted him years later, wanted to show the complete opposite of >the then common habits and way of life of the people. >He hardly would have become the great force in western civilization by the scheming of the early >church alone. No. He is the great Western symbol, but this symbol - this creation, by means of projection, of a god - could not found or sustain western civilization on its own. Some deliberation and some leadership was required. > Greg wrote: >Once again Dan, I can't tell if you just state these >things to get the curious to bite and ask more or if >you really believe the stuff that you write. I'm quite serious. When you're most inclined to think that I'm just jerking your chain, that's probably when I'm most serious :-). >In any case, the above statement is quite fantastic, >especially for an intelligent person to make. (snip) I think some very intelligent pagan thinkers would have thought much of Jesus' message to be silly, if not downright bizarre, had they heard it. Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? Men are equal in the sight of God? Compassion is the highest virtue? Humility is a virtue? The humble shall be exalted? The meek shall inherit the earth? Right or wrong, these teachings would, I think, be very foreign indeed to the sensibilities of the classical Western world, which did breed some very serious thinkers. Jesus' teachings seem to defy common sense. Now, again, perhaps they point to some esoteric doctrine that remains a closed book to me, but on the surface, they don't seem to make sense. >This >interpretation over many centuries, was motivated by >many factors, not the least of which was a >manipulative, abusive, paranoid power drive - one that >(your words would seem to indicate) you applaud in >some way. Why would I applaud abuse? As for manipulative power dirves, they are, imo, the very hallmark of the modern. > The church has so >blended with the Cartesian/Newtonian paradym that it >has abrogated its role of spiritual leadership in many >injurious ways. So it seems. Too much temporizing, perhaps, and not enough standing firm - and that apart form the plain, outright corruption. >The cities are now filled with millions of people who >crave the mountaintop (metaphorically speaking), not >realizing that an esoteric understanding of the >Christian faith (the tradition of which is largely >lost) urges one to find it " within " (as the word >esoteric implies), rather than " without " , as the >church has traditionally taught. Perhaps. But then why did Jesus teach it from the mountaintop, before the many, where it was certain to be misunderstood? wrote: >You, Dan, often go back to the Greek for the definition 'Love of wisdom'. >Which in application strikes me as inflated. The philosopher was the " lover of wisdom " in opposition to the sophist, the one who claimed actually to be wise. The philosopher was actually more intellectually humble. The oracle told Socrates that he was the wisest man. Socrates doubted it - turned out to be true because only Socrates knew his own ignorance. >N: Best argument I've read against 'care'. Please tell me you don't wish for or hope for what I have called the Star Trek future. >D:I'm against any effort to apply any policy universally. >N: What can I reply except, " Huh? " . When have you ever seen me advocate for a universal policy of any kind? Even the Church's totalitarianism at its height covered only parts of Europe, Africa and the Near East. >N: In light of your early psychiatrist employer who deemed your thinking to >be 90, It was 95, actually. >and a dream you report in the last couple of months, without a >smiley I can't take your statement at face value, No? ;-). Best regards, dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2002 Report Share Posted March 29, 2002 >>Perhaps it is time to return to the mountaintop, now that the cities are becoming grotesquely disconnected and dysfunctional in the Modern age.<< --Which makes me wonder if the " fall " that Dan speaks of (the descent of culture into unbelief and materialism) began in the first few centuries, due to the arrogance and fear of the various authoritarian hierarchies. The absolutism of the Church/Empire says to me that doubt was already eating away at the " masses " and science was simply an alternative to the blind authoritarianism that defended God even as it reflected deep uncertainty. Identifying God's will with that of an empowered elite did FAR more damage to real spirituality than any scientific revolution. Then science was framed for the death of God... From that perspective, the only flaw in science was taking too long to accept depth psychology, or the failure to address religion in a more satisfying way than the authorities of the pre-scientific era could. That the Gnostics were expelled from the early Church impies the materialist/utilitarian (or mind/body dualistic) paradigm was already kicking Jesus out of his rightful place as the carrier of the Self archetype. The Grail mythology of the middle ages may have been an attempt by the unconscious to address and rectify that problem. To assume that the Church was right in suppressing certain heresies is to detach the Church from its roots in Christ (i.e. integration of opposites)...how long can a divided house stand? For my part, I think Jesus, if he were around today, would be a scientist or an artist (or both). I doubt he would blame science, too easy a target. Just my feeling. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2002 Report Share Posted March 29, 2002 --- wrote: > >>Perhaps it is time to return to the mountaintop, > now that the cities are becoming grotesquely > disconnected and dysfunctional in the Modern age.<< My sense is that the Christian church is basically a shell of its former self in Europe now (gross generalization I know), having lost much of its former vitality and spiritual core. It is going stronger in the US, but largely because of the more extraverted/ evangelistic tendencies - that do tap into the feelings of disconnectedness you mentioned. The iconoclastic Anglican bishop, whose book WHY CHRISTIANITY MUST CHANGE OR DIE is interesting reading, has been quoted as saying the the largest group within Christendom is not the traditionalists, but rather, the Christian alumnae association. This trend, I believe, has exotericism at its root. A religion (any) that disconnects itself from its spiritual reason for being or fails to make itself socially relevent, is probably doomed. I personally do not believe that there is no reason for Christianity to die - but it does need to be transformed. Jesus probably never expected that he was creating a religion (a statement with which some ill disagree). He stood on the shoulders of the then ancient Judaism (the age of the Father), that was badly in need of transformation, interpreting the Torah and the God image in a revolutionary new way for his time. Many who followed after Jesus, including his own brother, wanted to keep the new faith, as it was developing, the sole province of the Jews. Then , who was spreading the Word throughout the known world, began to interest gentiles. That was one of the first great debates within the early church. Obviously, the universalists won out. Now we face a new and critical time in the history of the planet and of our species. A world of both unprecidented challenges and opportunities. One that demands a new interpretation - drawing upon the best of the ancient wisdom - but that seeks to embrace a wider audience yet. I believe we are entering a new age of the Holy Spirit - now only in gestation. Another writer on this subject, Lawrence Jaffe, wrote an interesting book CELEBRATING SOUL - Preparing for the New Religion - (similar to the the title of 's new book just out). I'll quote briefly from the last page of Jaffe's book: " The central theme in these pages has been consciousness or self-knowledge, for as Clement of andria says, 'When a man knows himself he knows God.' The process of coming to know ourselves is termed individuation, the preeminent form of worship of and service to God in the new religion. The primary institution now serving the process of individuation is depth psychology because of its capacity to generate consciousness. A possible initial theme of the new religion is the wounded inner child because it can open us up to the world within, that is, the realm of soul. Jungian psychology is not the new religion, but is can fairly be called its foremost apostle. " > --Which makes me wonder if the " fall " that Dan > speaks of (the descent of culture into unbelief and > materialism) began in the first few centuries, due > to the arrogance and fear of the various > >authoritarian hierarchies. The absolutism of the >Church/Empire says to me that doubt was already eating >away at the " masses " and science was simply an >alternative to > the blind authoritarianism that defended God even as it reflected deep uncertainty. Identifying God's will > with that of an empowered elite did FAR more damage > to real spirituality than any scientific revolution. > Then science was framed for the death of God... God died [in a Nietzschian sense] resulted from the scientism that disconnected man from his ability to apprehend/appreciate God. We became disconnected with ultimate meaning - the traditional domain of spirituality. I don't personally believe that there was a grand anti-Christian conspiracy among the early scientists. The domain and methodology of science is fundamentally different than the spiritual roles of the church. But there is a tendency by each camp to look so narrowly through their particular paradymatic glasses as to exclude the truth of the other. They simply talked past one another much of the time. Only fairly recently has there been a curiousity/desire to look for overlaps in the kind of knowledge and belief that each have provided. Jung's own discussions with i and with theologians late in life are examples of this urge to find a commonality of purpose toward the truth. We now see it in the works of Sheldrake, Sagan, Swimme, and many others. > From that perspective, the only flaw in science was > taking too long to accept depth psychology, or the > failure to address religion in a more satisfying way > than the authorities of the pre-scientific era > could. The Cartesian split of matter from spirit gave birth to the the scientific method, which basically is silent as to causes (whys) - it concentrates on hows (the habits of God). And, likewise, the church has been loathe to stray into the hows and when it has, has blundered (ala Gallileo). > That the Gnostics were expelled from the early > Church > impies the materialist/utilitarian (or mind/body > dualistic) paradigm was already kicking Jesus out of > his rightful place as the carrier of the Self > archetype. The Grail mythology of the middle ages > may have been an attempt by the unconscious to > address and rectify that problem. Indeed, and perhaps the best interpreter of the symbolism of the Parsifal myth was Emma Jung. > To assume that the Church was > right in suppressing certain heresies is to detach > the > Church from its roots in Christ (i.e. integration of > opposites)...how long can a divided house stand? It certainly appears that the foundations of the house are showing some cracks. Perhaps the desire to find the truth that each point of view can offer will lead to a truth that is more comprehensive - the whys and the hows. > For my part, I think Jesus, if he were around today, > would be a scientist or an artist (or both). I doubt > he would blame science, too easy a target. Just my > feeling. That is an interesting idea. I have never tried to imagine how Jesus would live today. But I suspect that he would have been uncomfortable being a pope or the leader of a huge religious/political movement or organization. Wasn't his style. He prefered to hang out with tax collectors, fishermen, and even prostitutes, in addition to his rag tag group (certainly not distinguished, degreed professionals) of followers. Perhaps he would be an analyst, a teacher or yoga instructor, who knows. I can imagine that he would share the life-giving spirit exemplified by the Dalai Lama; and that he would connect with people one on one. I can't really see him as a scientist or artist though. He was close to the ground, in touch with the Soul. The persona of so much of modern life would undoubtedly have been unwelcome and unattractive - unworthy of one who manifested the power and spiritual connection with the Divine. Nonetheless, I think his spirit is found in many artists and scientists. Indeed, the Imago Dei (Divine Guest) is to be found in everyone, IMO. We just have to look inside to find it. And that takes both desire...and work! Happy Easter. Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2002 Report Share Posted March 31, 2002 >>I always think of Jesus as a 70's hippie in appearance, of whom many make fun, but few listen to his words, they are so put off by their ideas of what " hippies " could possible know that would be of value.<< --Lately there seems to be an almost organized campaign to discredit environmentalists and other 'treehugger' types. It seems to be more than the work of media consultants...it's a collective shift away from the values of the 60's aquarian movement and toward a " hard-line " attitute toward other cultures, the earth, and children (rigid testing in schools, boot camps, drugs=terrorism etc.) and a negative feeling toward feminism and civil rights activism. Would Jesus be crucified all over again? Maybe in a collective sense, he is. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.