Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Dear , Who's " we, " kemosabe? Seriously, it does you no good to rail against the unwashed. The _Left Behind_ books read something like an evangelical King. They are fast paced and adventurous, with plenty of romance. Something for everyone. It is no surprise that people like them. Are they art? Imo, as art they are trash. People love trashy literature - nothing new about that. The question is, what, as " progressives, " do you and yours have to counter it? What is your popular myth? Where is your blockbuster series of novels that answers peoples' questions at the same time as it entertains? Without a popular counterpoint, you are just talking to yourselves. And, like onanism, that might feel good, but it doesn't produce anything. Best regards, Dan Watkins ---- Lockhart wrote: > Eve says: > >> It's frustrating and frightening to see people urged on to war, but I think that's what's happening. I really believe the Rapture myth is being perpetrated as purposefully as the Ubermensch myth was in Hitler's Germany.<< > > --It's scary, given that myths having such irrational power can become self-fulfilling prophesies. How many vials of wrath have to be unsealed for us to realize we're doing it to ourselves? > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I think The DaVinci Code fills the bill exactly, Dan.EveSeriously, it does you no good to rail against the unwashed. The _Left Behind_ books read something like an evangelical King. They are fast paced and adventurous, with plenty of romance. Something for everyone. It is no surprise that people like them. Are they art? Imo, as art they are trash. People love trashy literature - nothing new about that.The question is, what, as "progressives," do you and yours have to counter it? What is your popular myth? Where is your blockbuster series of novels that answers peoples' questions at the same time as it entertains? Without a popular counterpoint, you are just talking to yourselves. And, like onanism, that might feel good, but it doesn't produce anything.Best regards,Dan Watkins Curiouser and curiouser! - Carroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Dear Eve, Well, the DVC is certainly badly written, and it also casts doubt on the credibility of the RC Church - I'll grant you that much. But it doesn't offer much in the way of positive guidance. It doesn't purport to lay out the meaning of life or to teach the right way of life, as does the LB series. It doesn't really answer peoples' existential questions. I think you will need more. DVC tears down - it is iconoclastic - but it doesn't offer any new and improved icons as far as I can see. Best regards, Dan Watkins ---- Eve Neuhaus wrote: > I think The DaVinci Code fills the bill exactly, Dan. > > Eve > > > > > > > > Seriously, it does you no good to rail against the unwashed. The > > _Left Behind_ books read something like an evangelical > > King. They are fast paced and adventurous, with plenty of romance. > > Something for everyone. It is no surprise that people like them. > > Are they art? Imo, as art they are trash. People love trashy > > literature - nothing new about that. > > > > The question is, what, as " progressives, " do you and yours have to > > counter it? What is your popular myth? Where is your blockbuster > > series of novels that answers peoples' questions at the same time > > as it entertains? Without a popular counterpoint, you are just > > talking to yourselves. And, like onanism, that might feel good, but > > it doesn't produce anything. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Dan Watkins > > Curiouser and curiouser! - Carroll > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Dan wrote: > It [DC] doesn't purport to lay out the meaning of life or to teach the right way of life, as does the LB series. Dan, You suggest that the LB series " teaches the right way of life " ? Come now. IMO, LB is the kind of pathetic literalism of holy scripture that keeps another generation trapped in their sleep and yearning to be among the chosen sheep. It also is being used by many to become so disengaged in their responsibilites as human beings, focused as they often are on simply being in the " in group " that will surely be saved at the last day. Read Edinger for a far better interpretation of 's METAPHOR of the last days, than this rightwing " Christian " fundamentalist garbage. As for finding meaning of life, I suggest you invest some time in COSMOS AND PSYCHE, by Tarnas. He pulls together the meaning of the last three millenia - with a heavy dose of depth psychology into a well considered and compelling treatise. IMO he interprets Jung as he finally deserves to be interpreted. > It doesn't really answer peoples' existential questions. I think you will need more. DVC tears down - it is iconoclastic - but it doesn't offer any new and improved icons as far as I can see. DC is, after all, highly creative historical FICTION, with the purpose of creating questions in peoples' minds about the " truths " they have been fed up over the centuries that just don't hang together, theologically, historically or philosophically by the prevailing orthodoxy. And of course, the other purpose of fiction is to add the the bank account of the writer. So I'd say it has been highly successful in both departments. But Brown is not suggesting that his work is either hard fact or history. He just attempts to get people to think a bit deeper on things about which they have generally been sleeping for far too long. Opus Dei is a good example of the theological fascism fed up by the Vatican (by two popes who are likely among the last - depending upon how one interprets the 3rd Secret of Fatima) that hides behind a false veneer of " doing the Good. " This is dogmatic absurdity of the highest order and Dan Brown is to be commended for exposing it to the light of day. The violent reaction of the RC church is interesting. Methinks it doth protest too much! Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Dear Greg, You wrote: " Dan, >You suggest that the LB series " teaches the right way of life " ? I said that it purports to, which it certainly does. >Come now. IMO, LB is the kind of pathetic literalism of holy scripture >that keeps another generation trapped in their sleep and yearning to be >among the chosen sheep. " Another generation " ? Do you mean to imply that we might expect that one day there will be a generation that is not trapped in sleep? Universal enlightenment some day? > It also is being used by many to become so >disengaged in their >responsibilites as human beings, focused as they >often are on simply >being in the " in group " that will surely be saved at >the last day. Read >Edinger for a far better interpretation of 's >METAPHOR of the last days, than this rightwing " Christian " >fundamentalist garbage. I read his _Apocalypse_ book and came away unenlightened. I can well believe that apocalyptic thinking is archetypal in nature and origin - what else? - but I don't know how knowing that helps in a practical - i.e., political sense. What are we supposed to do with it? And if it's an archetype indded, then it can't be reasoned away - it will be too powerful for that. Archetypes are powerful. The archetype will need to have its place. >As for finding meaning of life, I suggest you invest some time in >COSMOS AND PSYCHE, by Tarnas. Truthfully, I despair of discovering the meaning of life, if any, because I am just not smart enough. I say so without irony. If Nietzsche couldn't do it, and Jung was left with questions, what chance do I have? The question is just too hard for me. >He pulls together the meaning of >the last three millenia - with a heavy >dose of depth psychology into a >well considered and compelling >treatise. IMO he interprets Jung as he >finally deserves to be >interpreted. > It doesn't really answer peoples' existential questions. I think you will >need more. DVC tears down - it is iconoclastic - but it doesn't offer any >new and improved icons as far as I can see. >DC is, after all, highly creative historical FICTION, with the purpose of >creating questions in peoples' minds about the " truths " they have been >fed up over the centuries that just don't hang together, theologically, >historically or philosophically by the prevailing orthodoxy. And of >course, the other purpose of fiction is to add the the bank account of the >writer. I expect the second reason accounts for the whole of it. > So I'd say it has been highly successful in both departments. >But >Brown is not suggesting that his work is either hard fact or history. >He >just attempts to get people to think a bit deeper on things about >which >they have generally been sleeping for far too long. Opus Dei is a >good example of the theological fascism fed up by the Vatican (by two >popes who are likely among the last - depending upon how one >interprets the >3rd Secret of Fatima) that hides behind a false veneer >of " doing the >Good. " This is dogmatic absurdity of the highest order >and Dan Brown >is to be commended for exposing it to the light of day. >The violent reaction of the RC church is interesting. Methinks it doth >protest too much! You claim that it is absurd that people, say, believe in the rapture or that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Of course it is absurd. But you do not say why you think people - many of them very intelligent people - continue to believe it. That seems to me to be the important question. And, to repeat, the fact that a powerful archetype (or more than one) is in play is no doubt part of the answer. The point is, you will not be able to say, in effect, " This is silly, just stop all of this nonsense, " and expect that to suffice. That's the Enlightenment fantasy - that the people can all be turned into little Voltaires, lol. " 'Bildung' nennen sie es, und blinzeln. " You want to overturn a powerful myth, you'd better have a powerful myth of your own - that's my point. I don't think you've got it. DVC is a flash in the pan - it will soon be forgotten, just as Gibson's film (remember?) has been just about forgotten. And, while I realy don't want to carry any water for the RCC, don't you think that the Grand Inquisitor had a point? Greg " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Dan wrote: " 'Another generation' " ? Do you mean to imply that we might expect that one day there will be a generation that is not trapped in sleep? Universal enlightenment some day? " Disengaging from literalism is a one by one project - no more universal than any other form of enlightenment (which seems to require that the individual experience a personal transformation (ie not a collective one). As Jung has said, the project of bringing the unconscious into the realm of consciousness is neither nor pleasant. And the ego defends against it with all manner of resistence and self-defence strategies. But this psychological fact does not render the project unworthy of the effort required. " I read his _Apocalypse_ book and came away unenlightened. " Perhaps you could re-read it with an open mind. You seem to have missed the main point. " I can well believe that apocalyptic thinking is archetypal in nature and origin - what else? " The archetypes are around us and in us throughtout the waking day, during our entire incarnation/lifetime. And our ability to recognize them, as such, can be enormously helpful and ultimately practical. For we begin to recognize their effect and power not only within, but also without (and in the others with whom we have relationships). How can this, alone, not be practical? Again, I refer you to Tarnas's book which deals with this subject at length. I really hope you'll read it Dan. Alice is saying much the same in her HEAVENS DECLARE and her other works. " - but I don't know how knowing that helps in a practical - i.e., political sense. What are we supposed to do with it? " Politics/ practical? What a strange combination of ideas. But if you don't think that archetypes appear in politics, then I suggest you are not looking...or perhaps don't know what they are. The politician co-inflates with prevailing Collective archetypal tendencies to get power. Hitler was quite effective at it, as were countless others. And that power (when a true democracy is in place -something we sadly lack at present), the will of the collective prevails....for better or worse. That is 'practical' I suppose. Whether it is moral or helpful to a progressive social evolution is quite another matter. But it is manipulated by the politician to achieve his objectives - be they driven by power, love or wisdom. Often, only the first is well-served. " Truthfully, I despair of discovering the meaning of life, if any, because I am just not smart enough. I say so without irony. If Nietzsche couldn't do it, and Jung was left with questions, what chance do I have? The question is just too hard for me. " So, what's the point!? You live, you get a job, you raise a family, you die. Wow, what a philosophy; why be born at all? But to suggest that this is Jung's contribution to Humanity is, well, a limited reading indeed. Try reading his MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL. I don't believe that Jung would despair of finding meaning in life, albeit via a difficult process, unfoldment. But to suggest that we have no capability of experiencing the transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly (metaphor of psychic development) is a pretty dreary outlook, even for poor Nietzsche, who I would not personlly hold up as a paragon for the well-lived life. He spent his last several years in a psychotic stupor in the hills north of Weimar, hardly the model for the " well-lived life. " But I don't think that anyone has clearly diagnosed the reasons for his late loss of sanity, though Jung spent many years on the subject (ala the Zarathustra lectures). Surely you can think of someone who claimed their share of joy and service of the Good who didn't claim that life has no meaning. They are not hard to find. " I expect the second reason [ie profit motive] accounts for the whole of it. " Well we can speculate on that all day long and never know the answer. Do you suggest that the authors of LB were not interested in the millions their crap has earned them was not a primary motive? As one of the most outspoken advocates of Capitalism among us, I would be surprised to hear you say this is not a proper motivation, whether the books produce socially worthy results or not. " You claim that it is absurd that people, say, believe in the rapture or that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Of course it is absurd. But you do not say why you think people - many of them very intelligent people - continue to believe it. " I don't believe I claimed anything of the kind. What people choose to 'believe' is their own affair. I don't judge them for it, even as I am astonished, personally, that they can hold such beliefs. I do strongly object, however, to their tendency to marry their 'beliefs' to the extent of codifying them into laws by which we must all abide. That, for me, is too far. Furthermore, belief doesn't make something true. The work of Copernicus and Galileo serve as evidence for that reality. They had the courage to defent the " flat earth " geocentric theology of their day, at huge personal risk. And it took 600 years for the church to finally apologize to poor old Galileo and release his soul from purgatory for his offense to an outworn and falacious dogma. Such is the result when beliefs are too slow to yield to new truths, even when hardened dogma shuts off the freely creative and open minds of millions to the possibility that they are wrong. Today, most of readily acknowledge that the Sun is the center of our planetary system; but it was not always acceptible of safe to hold such a POV. In the words of Gershwin: " the things that your precha is lible to teach ya, it ain't necessarily so. " " That seems to me to be the important question. And, to repeat, the fact that a powerful archetype (or more than one) is in play is no doubt part of the answer. " I agree. " You want to overturn a powerful myth, you'd better have a powerful myth of your own - that's my point. I don't think you've got it. " The power myth, as you have called it, and our fascination and addiction to it, has been the bane of human existence for too many centuries IMO. It is long-passed time to try an alternative. As Wagner identified it so well in his Ring cycle of operas, and Nietzsche his contemporary also discovered, the power drive ALWAYS and ultimately requires the renunciation of love to prevail. That can never be the formula for our success as a species. ation and compassion must also be acknowledged as prime forces for our collective future. Of that I have no doubt. So we start from different premeses Dan. And as long as we are tied to your " power myth " as the " only way " we are doomed to repeat, ad nauseum, the fate of our ancestors. Power, love and wisdom - all three are required, each properly balanced by the others. How about that as a replacement! It would be at least worthy of trying, sincerely. But balancing the three is much more difficult, requires far more skill and creativity, than yielding to one over the other two, or to the exclusion of them altogether. " DVC is a flash in the pan - it will soon be forgotten, just as Gibson's film (remember?) has been just about forgotten. " I am not an apologist for DVC. I enjoyed reading it and found some value to it. And I am instructed by observing the nerves it is probing, especially within the RC community, who can perhaps become a bit more self-reflective, if they can pull themselves out of the hole in the sand long enough to see the truths it contains. Some I know now a strong opinion of the subject, having niether read the book, nor seen the movie, simply because the " holy " fathers in the Vatican forbid them from doing so (yet another example of the power drive in action). That, to me, is rather pathetic. And frankly, I refuse to waste my time discussing the matter with someone whose opinion is formed only by the fear of forming their own opinion, choosing instead the ignorance of the matter. For their opinion is only a prejudice, not a choice. " And, while I realy don't want to carry any water for the RCC, don't you think that the Grand Inquisitor had a point? " Yes, his role was the point man for the power-drive philosophy which you seem to embrace. He was successful, for a few centuries at least, in stifling dissent, killing creativity and reinforcing fear as a primary motivation to " have faith " . We now call that period the Dark Ages, not by accident. But I'm not convinced that he has won out in the end. I do have some hope that love, wisdom and MEANING can eventually have their day and that we can eventually look upon the Grand Inquisitor as a sad, quaint relic of our dark collective past. As always, I enjoy the debate. But now, back to " the real world. " Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Greg, The necessity for this: " ...the transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly (metaphor of psychic development)... " I think demeans our intelligence. ( all I would think know this, or as a resurrection metaphor ) I'll admit I have just skimmed the posts on this because, frankly, it seems to me a topic that has been relegated to the 'non interesting' part of my mind. However, not knowing Dan's real intent, but in glancing, I seemed to pick up the rapture serves the purpose of meaning in their life. Left Behind is the metaphor. That it's shadow contents are harmful to the zeitgeist, perhaps. But most are good,decent people, and in the end who is to judge the worthiness of belief systems. All are a means for people to maintain the homeostasis of their psyche. A way to organize the world and their own psyche. Probably all of them have shadow material. Betty --------------------------------------------------- Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus Pro 2006. No threat detected. Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Betty wrote: " The necessity for this: " ...the transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly (metaphor of psychic development)... " I think demeans our intelligence. " Betty, Sorry for demeaning your intelligence. That was certainly not my aim. I merely shared that which for me is a very powerful and positive metaphor, one that I certainly did not invent and that has been instructive in my own life. The Greek word " psyche " means both breath and butterfly. So perhaps the notion is not a new one either. Apparently it has not appealing to you and I regret having bored you so. I have shared it many dozens of people for whom it also serves as a meaningful idea; but obviously it does not for everyone. " (all I would think know this, or as a resurrection metaphor) I'll admit I have just skimmed the posts on this because, frankly, it seems to me a topic that has been relegated to the 'non interesting' part of my mind. " What I usually do with 'non interesting' posts is to ignore them and move on. You, on the other hand, chose to attack their authenticity or applicability on the basis that you find them absurd or uninteresting. And if one is not interested in the possibility of a transformative change of being - within this lifetime (ala the caterpillar/butterfly) there is perhaps no amount of talking about it that can make it interesting. So I won't waste your time or mine in the attempt. " However, not knowing Dan's real intent, but in glancing, I seemed to pick up the rapture serves the purpose of meaning in their life. Left Behind is the metaphor. " Yes, I don't deny that it serves a purpose for those who interpret it differently than I do. It is a different metaphor, based upon a common religious tradition (nominally, Christianity), but with a quite different meaning altogether. Isn't it interesting how intelligent people can so differ in the interpretation of these sacred words. They are both valid, insofar as they provide meaning to people, yet they are so completely different. I find this fascination. " That it's shadow contents are harmful to the zeitgeist, perhaps. But most are good,decent people, and in the end who is to judge the worthiness of belief systems. " Only the people affected by the interpretations themselves. I, for one, have been alarmed with the political and social implications of the LB folks, and how it colors their outlook on life. My neighbor, a good, decent man to be sure, even stated to me (quite earnestly) a few years ago that he didn't much care about politics because the second coming, which will likely occur within our lifetimes, will clear the air and all the excesses of modern life that we could change (for the better) are needless anyway, so why worry about them. Thus for him, his " faith " has the effect of making him numb and unmotivated to even care, so sure is he that he'll eventually be counted as one of the sheep at the final rapture. Can one not count this as blissful abdication bordering on irresponsible. Yet he is drawn to this bizarre conclusion by way of his " faith " in this series of novels, interpreted in the most literalistic of ways. " All are a means for people to maintain the homeostasis of their psyche. A way to organize the world and their own psyche. Probably all of them have shadow material. " Yes, and I suspect there are many millions for whom homeostasis is the supreme Good. I have also seen how it can be used as a mind-numbing cop-out for the work the human family has to do for our own mutual and collective survival. When the mythical/religious interpretation takes us in a direction of absolving us from doing something positive, within our lifetime, to move us toward to economic justice, environmental sanity and energy sustainability, instead of focusing on the Lehay idea of being a sheep rather than a goat (as prescribed by his fundamentalist belief construct) then I question its real value....even if it does satisfy the natural human longing for 'homeostasis'. The two need not be mutually exclusive. Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 I did not know the Greek word psyche meant butterfly. I should have moved on, but didn't . Your quote: " When the mythical/religious interpretation takes us in a direction of absolving us from doing something positive, within our lifetime, to move us toward to economic justice, environmental sanity and energy sustainability, instead of focusing on the Lehay idea of being a sheep rather than a goat (as prescribed by his fundamentalist belief construct) then I question its real value....even if it does satisfy the natural human longing for 'homeostasis'. The two need not be mutually exclusive. " Aren't good decent lives,and good decent values going to take care of the above without postulating pats on the back for activists. I don't know why Greg, and I am probably projecting my own shadow, but self righteousness about how much we can do, leaves out how much we are meant to do, and what we are meant to do. This can lead astray as well.. One's person homeostasis is another person' psyche imbalance. Yours requires activism. Some others may require a more contemplative approach. ( " Martha, Martha... " ages old). Regardless, seems someone is always judging the different positions, instead of holding the tension of the two. I am being contrary today when I should be quiet. Betty --------------------------------------------------- Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus Pro 2006. No threat detected. Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Betty wrote: " Aren't good decent lives,and good decent values going to take care of the above without postulating pats on the back for activists. " I am all for good, decent people. I am surrounded with them. And that ain't all bad. And I'm also for those who " are meant " to move us forward, be it as activists or philosophers or tricksters (as Dan likes to be sometimes). It takes many and varied instruments to make the beautiful music of the symphony. I am NOT advocating that we all be/do the same thing....far from it. Variety is still the spice of life - for me. But don't you think that the activists have a legitimate place too Betty? And ,it is not a zero-sum game is it? What about their goodness and decency? Without valuing those who challenge the status quo, life goes flat and stay put. My comment about those who rest comfortably in their " Christian belief " is prompted by my observation that it can lead to a tendency to " give up " on trying to move the world in a better direction, because their literal interpretation of scripture makes them not only righteously complacent and even dillusionary about Biblical Fate (not 'faith') according to their understanding of scripture. If enough people adopt this attitude, we can all just give up wait until the Rapture.....which may come, but I'm not counting on it. To my way of thinking/believing, the Second Coming is something that we attain to b.d.(before death), not after. Jesus showed us the way we can each take up our own cross, rather than expect us to spend eternity reveling in his personal divinity. And what we don't attain to (spiritually) in this lifetime, we'll get another shot in the next...and the next....etc. I had a preacher years ago whose favorite aphorism was: " pray as though everything depends upon God; work as though everything depends upon me. " And at 85, he is still out there doing the Good work that he was " meant to do. " He has never succumbed to complency or spending life on the golf course (though he has by most measures earned the right to do so), and I love and respect him for it. Yet I don't expect everyone to be him. " I don't know why Greg, and I am probably projecting my own shadow, but self righteousness about how much we can do, leaves out how much we are meant to do, and what we are meant to do. " How does one discover what one is " meant to do? " This in not an idle question. If we seek the answer via holy scripture, then we may be led in a certain direction; if we follow our bliss (as Joe suggested) we might find ourself on quite a different path; both legitimate, depending upon our interpretation and commitment. " This can lead astray as well.. One's person homeostasis is another person' psyche imbalance. Yours requires activism. Some others may require a more contemplative approach. ( " Martha, Martha... " ages old). " We need the s and the Marthas. But I have also discovered that we are each a complex a huge bundle of archetypal energies, all mixed up together and juxtaposed in the most fascinating variety of ways. I agree that some are more activity oriented, and some more contemplative. It may surprise you to know that I generally consider myself more in the latter camp than in the former...more than Martha Both both have their time and place in the great scheme. " Regardless, seems someone is always judging the different positions, instead of holding the tension of the two. " I realize that I sometimes sound judgemental and harshly critical about religious fundamentalism (my Shadow). I have found this tendency among people who have been brought up in a fundamentalist family or early life and then spend many of their later years reacting to it. The reverse is also the case sometimes. And I truly do try to hold the tension...in more ways than you can probably imagine. " I am being contrary today when I should be quiet. " Be contrary all you want Betty....keeps life interesting! Wouldn't it be a terrific bore if we all agreed on everything. Jung-Fire would not need to exist if that were the case. Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Of course Greg, all you say is valid here. I have one more thing to say and that is recently I read somewhere that the environmental movement is as fundamentalist as the fundamentalist Christians, and that the psychic energy behind their belief is as detrimental. Meaning, I suppose, a lack of balance. Betty I realize that I sometimes sound judgemental and harshly critical about religious fundamentalism (my Shadow). I have found this tendency among people who have been brought up in a fundamentalist family or early life and then spend many of their later years reacting to it. The reverse is also the case sometimes. And I truly do try to hold the tension...in more ways than you can probably imagine. " I am being contrary today when I should be quiet. " Be contrary all you want Betty....keeps life interesting! Wouldn't it be a terrific bore if we all agreed on everything. Jung-Fire would not need to exist if that were the case. Greg --------------------------------------------------- Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus Pro 2006. No threat detected. Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Dear Greg, You wrote: Dan wrote: " 'Another generation' " ? Do you mean to imply that we might expect that one day there will be a generation that is not trapped in sleep? Universal enlightenment some day? " Disengaging from literalism is a one by one project - no more universal than any other form of enlightenment (which seems to require that the individual experience a personal transformation (ie not a collective one). We agree on that, then - " enlightenment " is strictly personal, not political. As Jung has said, the project of bringing the unconscious into the realm of consciousness is neither nor pleasant. And the ego defends against it with all manner of resistence and self-defence strategies. What would nature's reason be for such resistance and defense, I wonder? But this psychological fact does not render the project unworthy of the effort required. " I read his _Apocalypse_ book and came away unenlightened. " Perhaps you could re-read it with an open mind. You seem to have missed the main point. I almost always have an open mind, but I don't always understand what I read. What is the main point that I issed? " I can well believe that apocalyptic thinking is archetypal in nature and origin - what else? " The archetypes are around us and in us throughtout the waking day, during our entire incarnation/lifetime. And our ability to recognize them, as such, can be enormously helpful and ultimately practical. For we begin to recognize their effect and power not only within, but also without (and in the others with whom we have relationships). How can this, alone, not be practical? Yes - understood. But what I meant was, what is the " take-away " from Edinger's book regarding what is to be done politically *right now*? What, for example, should his teaching lead us to do about Iraq, or Islamic fundamentalism, or climate change (if any), or any of the other political challenges we face? If it was there (and I was looking), I missed it. The political question par excellance is, How, then, shall we live? I didn't get his answer. >Again, I refer you to Tarnas's book which deals with this subject at >length. I really hope you'll read it Dan. Tell you what, Greg - I'll accept a homework assignment if you'll accept one from me. Then we can each report back. What do you say? >Alice is saying much the same in her HEAVENS DECLARE and her >other works. " - but I don't know how knowing that helps in a practical - i.e., political sense. What are we supposed to do with it? " Politics/ practical? What a strange combination of ideas. Politics is all about the practical. Building freeways is practical. Fighting wars is practical. Law is all about the practical. If men lived in contemplation on the Isle of the Blessed, there would be no need for politics. > But if you don't think that archetypes appear in politics, Of course they do - that was my point. If the apocalypse is indeed an archetype, we have a problem on our hands. >then I suggest >you are not looking...or perhaps don't know what they >are. The >politician co-inflates with prevailing Collective archetypal >tendencies to >get power. Hitler was quite effective at it, as were >countless others. Are you suggesting that all political men are essentially like Hitler, differing perhaps only in degree? >And that power (when a true democracy is in place -something we >sadly lack at present), the will of the collective prevails....for better or >worse. If it would be for worse, is its lack still sad? Democracy is a form of government among others, not a sacrament. It's not God's favorite form of government, lol (there is every reason to think that God is indifferent to the affairs of men). In places and times where it is not appropriate - not the best for the given situation - I can't see why the lack of it would be sad. >That is 'practical' I suppose. Whether it is moral or helpful to a >progressive social evolution is quite another matter. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a " progressive social evolution, " but I got an idea I don't like it :-). >But it is >manipulated by the politician to achieve his objectives - be they driven >by power, love or wisdom. Often, only the first is well-served. " Truthfully, I despair of discovering the meaning of life, if any, because I am just not smart enough. I say so without irony. If Nietzsche couldn't do it, and Jung was left with questions, what chance do I have? The question is just too hard for me. " >So, what's the point!? You live, you get a job, you raise a family, you >die. Wow, what a philosophy; why be born at all? Yet that is the philosophy of modernity, and esp. of modern science - the only myth, imo, currently of any serious competition to the Judeo-Christian myth in the west. >But to suggest that this is Jung's contribution to Humanity is, well, a >limited reading indeed. I didn't say anything about Jung's contribution to humanity. I said that I can hardly expect myself to solve a problem that he could not fully solve. " I know not the art of making myself clear to those who will not attend. " > Try reading his MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL. I don't believe that Jung would despair of finding meaning in life, albeit via a difficult process, unfoldment. But to suggest that we have no capability of >experiencing the transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly>(metaphor of psychic development) is a pretty dreary outlook, even for >poor Nietzsche, who I would not personlly hold up as a paragon for the >well-lived life. I'm not interested in transformations that are not solidly grounded in apodeictic certainty. There's analysis, and there's suggestion, and that's it. It's true that Nietzsche had his problems, and that there are those who clearly have done better - Jung is one - but Nietzsche still imo lived a better life than 99.9999999% of human beings are capable. He was a philosopher - the highest class of human being. What more could anyone reasonably ask? >He spent his last several years in a psychotic stupor in the hills north of Weimar, hardly the model for the " well-lived life. " But I don't think that anyone has clearly diagnosed the reasons for his late loss of sanity, though Jung spent many years on the subject (ala the Zarathustra lectures). Surely you can think of someone who claimed their share of joy and service of the Good who didn't claim that life has no meaning. They are not hard to find. " I expect the second reason [ie profit motive] accounts for the whole of it. " Well we can speculate on that all day long and never know the answer. Do you suggest that the authors of LB were not interested in the millions their crap has earned them was not a primary motive? Of course they were. As one of the most outspoken advocates of Capitalism among us, If I am among of the most outspoken advocates of capitalism among us, capitalism must be in serious trouble in these parts, since I look at capitalism with a jaundiced eye. The best you can say for it is that it is preferable to the currently available alternatives - and that's not saying much. Capitalism is emblematic of modernity, and will bring us to the universal homogenous state - the kingdom of the last man - if we're not careful. Feudalism was better, the ancient Roman economy better still. What socialism promises, capitalism can deliver - that's what's wrong with it. > I would be surprised to hear you say this is not a proper motivation, >whether the books produce socially worthy results or not. Then prepare to be surprised, since I do not think that there is a natural right to sell books (or other things) that are socially corrosive. Now, whether LB is such a book or not is another question, but in principle, I have no objection to subjecting commerce to virtue. Hence, for example, I see no reason not to ban cigarettes - smoking is a vice. I used to be too conservative because I was not convservative enough. " You claim that it is absurd that people, say, believe in the rapture or that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Of course it is absurd. But you do not say why you think people - many of them very intelligent people - continue to believe it. " I don't believe I claimed anything of the kind. What people choose to 'believe' is their own affair. I don't judge them for it, even as I am astonished, personally, that they can hold such beliefs. Ah... you are " astonished, " but do not judge. Are you astonished, then, at how sensible the believers are? > I do strongly object, however, to their tendency to marry their 'beliefs' to >the extent of codifying them into laws by which we must all abide. That, >for me, is too far. Furthermore, belief doesn't make something true. >The work of Copernicus and Galileo serve as evidence for that reality. Is it your opinion that C and G improved the life of the people? >They had the courage to defent the " flat earth " geocentric theology of >their day, at huge personal risk. And it took 600 years for the church to >finally apologize to poor old Galileo and release his soul from purgatory >for his offense to an outworn and falacious dogma. Such is the result >when beliefs are too slow to yield to new truths, even when hardened >dogma shuts off the freely creative and open minds of millions to the >possibility that they are wrong. Today, most of readily acknowledge >that the Sun is the center of our planetary system; but it was not always >acceptible of safe to hold such a POV. And perhaps in future those conditions will obtain again. >In the words of Gershwin: " the >things that your precha is lible to teach ya, it ain't necessarily so. " " That seems to me to be the important question. And, to repeat, the fact that a powerful archetype (or more than one) is in play is no doubt part of the answer. " I agree. " You want to overturn a powerful myth, you'd better have a powerful myth of your own - that's my point. I don't think you've got it. " >The power myth, as you have called it, and our fascination and >addiction to it, has been the bane of human existence for too many >centuries IMO. I didn't say " power myth, " I said " a powerful myth. " At present, to repeat, the only myth as powerful as the religious one is that of natural science. Imo, it won't do. >It is long-passed time to try an alternative. OK. Waddya got? As Wagner identified it so well in his Ring cycle of operas, and Nietzsche his contemporary also discovered, the power drive ALWAYS and >ultimately requires the renunciation of love to prevail. This would mean that love itself has no power, or is not powerful, which I doubt. While it is not true that all you need is love, it is certainly true that love is one of the things you need. >That can never be the formula for our success as a species. " Success as a species. " Darwin again. If Darwin is right, then life really is a tale told by an idiot, the " philosophy " that you yourself decry above. But if Darwin represents the true speech about the origins, then human life is indeed naturally empty and meaningless. >ation and compassion must also be acknowledged as prime f>orces for our collective future. Of that I have no doubt. Why do you have no doubt? How do you know that these are the things most needful? > So we start from different premeses Dan. And as long as we are tied to your " power myth " as the " only way " we are doomed to repeat, ad nauseum, the fate of our ancestors. Power, love and wisdom - all three are required, each properly balanced by the others. How about that as a replacement! It would be at least worthy of trying, sincerely. But balancing the three is much more difficult, requires far more skill and creativity, than yielding to one over the other two, or to the exclusion of them altogether. " DVC is a flash in the pan - it will soon be forgotten, just as Gibson's film (remember?) has been just about forgotten. " >I am not an apologist for DVC. I enjoyed reading it and found some >value to it. And I am instructed by observing the nerves it is probing, >especially within the RC community, who can perhaps become a bit >more self-reflective, Do you think the claims made in DVC are news to the Vatican? I don't. They *have* thought about it. >if they can pull themselves out of the hole in the sand long enough to >see the truths it contains. Some I know now a strong opinion of the >subject, having niether read the book, nor seen the movie, simply >because the " holy " fathers in the Vatican forbid them from doing so (yet >another example of the power drive in action). That, to me, is rather >pathetic. A thing can be pathetic without being unnecessary. > And frankly, I refuse to waste my time discussing the matter with someone whose opinion is formed only by the fear of forming their own opinion, choosing instead the ignorance of the matter. For their opinion is only a prejudice, not a choice. " And, while I realy don't want to carry any water for the RCC, don't you think that the Grand Inquisitor had a point? " >Yes, his role was the point man for the power-drive philosophy which >you seem to embrace. No. He cared better for the many than Jesus did. That was his claim. And I'm not sure he was wrong. > He was successful, for a few centuries at least, in stifling dissent, >killing creativity and reinforcing fear as a primary motivation to " have >faith " . We now call that period the Dark Ages, not by accident. As opposed, presumably, to the " Enlightenment, " where we believe in nothing but our own power to torture nature's secrets from her, in order to bend her to our wills - speaking of the power drive. The Enlightenment is all about power. > But I'm not convinced that he has won out in the end. I do have some hope that love, wisdom and MEANING can eventually have their day and that we can eventually look upon the Grand Inquisitor as a sad, quaint relic of our dark collective past. As always, I enjoy the debate. But now, back to " the real world. " Greg - dialectic *is* the real world. It's as real as it gets. Best regards, Dan Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Betty, Who decides that some lives are " good " ? And good decent values? You may think that is obvious but it is not. We make a judgment when we say " good " ...according to our own values. Read Jung on " ignorance " and innocence " It will amaze you what he finds wrong about those who are ignorant... innocence and ignorant are no excuses to his mind. No one has to pat anyone on the back. Our lives themselves show to all what we are. No one in my opinion is " good " if he personally thinks he is saved and need do nothing about the rest of the world. Doesn't love have something to do with it.??>?? Any theology, philosophy that labels people good or bad depends on the mores and cultural values of its time. I am not convinced we have the right to say " good or " bad " when we are judged by literal fundamentalists.or judge them...and they do not have that right either. One must take an active part in ones own life. We must always chose in this world, and not choosing is itself a choice. Good happy feelings, smug and personal about being " saved " leads to triumphalism...and that smacks hard on pride and self righteousness. We are not in this world alone and our relationship with others is very important to our meaning. lets go back to plain talk...big words do not always say what we mean. No one " goes to heaven " is " saved " alone. And if we love our neighbor as ourselves, we do not shrug our shoulders, and we do not act superior. We should realize that if G-d is within he is within everyone. " Good " and " bad " depends on our own ability to see reality. It is relative. And I very much doubt that what is " good " for me in my spiritual life, is right or good for you or anyone else just as it is without taking character, opportunity,experience, maturity and grace into account, even in the same milieu. Those who cannot move, act, grow are dead already. They cannot learn from their experiences...since they know it all already....So " good " " decent " people are your value judgments of ALL those who see the end of the world coming...that is the only criterion? We would all be safer if we decided not to judge others " good " or " bad " and loved them as they really are, no? ( Even Jesus reacted when some called him 'good " , by saying only G-d is good) We had better all act, be activists as regards our neighbor, hadn't we? " Where were you when I was hungry, cold, in prison.????...... I know something about contemplative life and I promise you, no religion I know of allows just sitting and gazing, without active work. Contemplatives are still in this world and work goes with prayer, believe me. It is impossible to be a true contemplative without love and concern for our fellow man. You would do an injustice to all those who lead contemplative lives if you think they sit on their hands. Even the early Fathers who went into the desert, did not live their whole lives there or forget the humanity around them. One of the greatest mystics in history formed 17 convents and reformed her order in time of great turmoil....St of Avila. Martha worried and was anxious, and complained, while was at peace and took the opportunity to listen and love for the short time He was with them. That was the reason had the better part. It was not a dig at activists that made Jesus say " had the better part, " at all. The tension of opposites is a great ideal...if more people were able to do it it would change the world. It is not that easy because it leads to transcendence. We don't see much of that around in daily life, do we? Toni Who tries to live as contemplative a life as she can at this point in her life, yet has active responsibilities also. Every spiritual book warns that one must also be at work for the world. Re: Left Behind >I did not know the Greek word psyche meant butterfly. I should have moved > on, but didn't . > Your quote: > " When the mythical/religious interpretation takes us in a direction of > absolving us from doing something positive, within our lifetime, to move > us > toward to economic justice, environmental sanity and energy > sustainability, > instead of focusing on the Lehay idea of being a sheep rather than a goat > (as prescribed by his fundamentalist belief construct) then I question its > real value....even if it does satisfy the natural human longing for > 'homeostasis'. The two need not be mutually exclusive. " > > Aren't good decent lives,and good decent values going to take care of the > above without postulating pats on the back for activists. I don't know why > Greg, and I am probably projecting my own shadow, but self righteousness > about how much we can do, leaves out how much we are meant to do, and what > we are meant to do. This can lead astray as well.. One's person > homeostasis > is another person' psyche imbalance. Yours requires activism. Some others > may require a more contemplative approach. ( " Martha, Martha... " ages > old). > Regardless, seems someone is always judging the different positions, > instead > of holding the tension of the two. > I am being contrary today when I should be quiet. > Betty >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Dear Dan, How should we then live? As if we actually loved, cared for and helped our neighbor AS ourselves. If we finally grasped that we are ALL ONE. And what exactly is the " real world " ? is it the same for everyone? Enlightenment if it means anything, gives the person the conviction that his participation in the world matters and that the kingdom of G-d is not somewhere else but right here if we will only be sensitive to it. In the end the enlightened know that ALL is ONE. To have no idea what one's meaning and purpose is in life is often laziness in trying to figure out the hard things we must. No one is going to give one a grade for how well we decide. It seems to me one would be a hollow shell without motivation to extend oneself at all. It also seems to me it leads as it sounds by your post...to despair. It takes courage to find an answer and then act on it...we will never know how right or how wrong we were except by how we finally judge our lives. Some find joy, some find happiness, some find nothing, no love, no human contact, and then there are the millions in between who struggle day by day to find love and meaning in their lives. It is up to each individual to decide " how must we then live " My answer will not be yours...you have a hierarchy of values of your own. But not taking the time effort and courage to dig out one's meaning sounds to me as a lost life. It really is OK to be mistaken, and try and try again. Political motives stem from one's values. If one believes all men are equal in the end one behaves differently than if we are but ants struggling with only our own needs. How we think about ourselves usually determines our political outlook and action. Toni Re: Left Behind > Dear Greg, > > You wrote: > > Dan wrote: > > " 'Another generation' " ? Do you mean to imply that we might expect that one > day there will be a generation that is not trapped in sleep? Universal > enlightenment some day? " > > Disengaging from literalism is a one by one project - no more universal > than any other form of enlightenment (which seems to require that the > individual experience a personal transformation (ie not a collective one). > > We agree on that, then - " enlightenment " is strictly personal, not > political. > > > As Jung has said, the project of bringing the unconscious into the realm > of consciousness is neither nor pleasant. And the ego defends against it > with all manner of resistence and self-defence strategies. > > > What would nature's reason be for such resistance and defense, I wonder? > > > But this psychological fact does not render the project unworthy of the > effort required. > > > " I read his _Apocalypse_ book and came away unenlightened. " > > Perhaps you could re-read it with an open mind. You seem to have missed > the main point. > > I almost always have an open mind, but I don't always understand what I > read. What is the main point that I issed? > > > " I can well believe that apocalyptic thinking is archetypal in nature and > origin - what else? " > > The archetypes are around us and in us throughtout the waking day, during > our entire incarnation/lifetime. And our ability to recognize them, as > such, can be enormously helpful and ultimately practical. For we begin to > recognize their effect and power not only within, but also without (and in > the others with whom we have relationships). How can this, alone, not be > practical? > > Yes - understood. But what I meant was, what is the " take-away " from > Edinger's book regarding what is to be done politically *right now*? What, > for example, should his teaching lead us to do about Iraq, or Islamic > fundamentalism, or climate change (if any), or any of the other political > challenges we face? If it was there (and I was looking), I missed it. The > political question par excellance is, How, then, shall we live? I didn't > get his answer. > > > >Again, I refer you to Tarnas's book which deals with this subject at > > >length. I really hope you'll read it Dan. > > Tell you what, Greg - I'll accept a homework assignment if you'll accept > one from me. Then we can each report back. What do you say? > > >>Alice is saying much the same in her HEAVENS DECLARE and her >other works. > > " - but I don't know how knowing that helps in a practical - i.e., > political sense. What are we supposed to do with it? " > > Politics/ practical? What a strange combination of ideas. > > Politics is all about the practical. Building freeways is practical. > Fighting wars is practical. Law is all about the practical. If men lived > in contemplation on the Isle of the Blessed, there would be no need for > politics. > >> But if you don't think that archetypes appear in politics, > > Of course they do - that was my point. If the apocalypse is indeed an > archetype, we have a problem on our hands. > >>then I suggest >you are not looking...or perhaps don't know what they >> >are. The >politician co-inflates with prevailing Collective archetypal >> >tendencies to >get power. Hitler was quite effective at it, as were >> >countless others. > > Are you suggesting that all political men are essentially like Hitler, > differing perhaps only in degree? > > >And that power (when a true democracy is in place -something we >sadly > >lack at present), the will of the collective prevails....for better or > > >worse. > > If it would be for worse, is its lack still sad? > > Democracy is a form of government among others, not a sacrament. It's not > God's favorite form of government, lol (there is every reason to think > that God is indifferent to the affairs of men). In places and times where > it is not appropriate - not the best for the given situation - I can't see > why the lack of it would be sad. > > > >That is 'practical' I suppose. Whether it is moral or helpful to a > > >progressive social evolution is quite another matter. > > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a " progressive social evolution, " > but I got an idea I don't like it :-). > >>But it is >manipulated by the politician to achieve his objectives - be >>they driven >by power, love or wisdom. Often, only the first is >>well-served. > > " Truthfully, I despair of discovering the meaning of life, if any, because > I am just not smart enough. I say so without irony. If Nietzsche couldn't > do it, and Jung was left with questions, what chance do I have? The > question is just too hard for me. " > >>So, what's the point!? You live, you get a job, you raise a family, you >> >die. Wow, what a philosophy; why be born at all? > > Yet that is the philosophy of modernity, and esp. of modern science - the > only myth, imo, currently of any serious competition to the > Judeo-Christian myth in the west. > > >But to suggest that this is Jung's contribution to Humanity is, well, a > > >limited reading indeed. > > I didn't say anything about Jung's contribution to humanity. I said that I > can hardly expect myself to solve a problem that he could not fully solve. > " I know not the art of making myself clear to those who will not attend. " > > >> Try reading his MODERN MAN IN SEARCH OF A SOUL. I don't believe that >> Jung would despair of finding meaning in life, albeit via a difficult >> process, unfoldment. But to suggest that we have no capability of >> >experiencing the transformation of the caterpillar into the >> butterfly>(metaphor of psychic development) is a pretty dreary outlook, >> even for >poor Nietzsche, who I would not personlly hold up as a paragon >> for the >well-lived life. > > I'm not interested in transformations that are not solidly grounded in > apodeictic certainty. There's analysis, and there's suggestion, and that's > it. > > It's true that Nietzsche had his problems, and that there are those who > clearly have done better - Jung is one - but Nietzsche still imo lived a > better life than 99.9999999% of human beings are capable. He was a > philosopher - the highest class of human being. What more could anyone > reasonably ask? > > > > >>He spent his last several years in a psychotic stupor in the hills north >>of Weimar, hardly the model for the " well-lived life. " But I don't think >>that anyone has clearly diagnosed the reasons for his late loss of sanity, >>though Jung spent many years on the subject (ala the Zarathustra >>lectures). Surely you can think of someone > who claimed their share of joy and service of the Good who didn't claim > that life has no meaning. They are not hard to find. > > > " I expect the second reason [ie profit motive] accounts for the whole of > it. " > > Well we can speculate on that all day long and never know the answer. Do > you suggest that the authors of LB were not interested in the millions > their crap has earned them was not a primary motive? > > Of course they were. > > As one of the most outspoken advocates of Capitalism among us, > > If I am among of the most outspoken advocates of capitalism among us, > capitalism must be in serious trouble in these parts, since I look at > capitalism with a jaundiced eye. The best you can say for it is that it is > preferable to the currently available alternatives - and that's not saying > much. Capitalism is emblematic of modernity, and will bring us to the > universal homogenous state - the kingdom of the last man - if we're not > careful. Feudalism was better, the ancient Roman economy better still. > What socialism promises, capitalism can deliver - that's what's wrong with > it. > > >> I would be surprised to hear you say this is not a proper motivation, >> >whether the books produce socially worthy results or not. > > Then prepare to be surprised, since I do not think that there is a natural > right to sell books (or other things) that are socially corrosive. Now, > whether LB is such a book or not is another question, but in principle, I > have no objection to subjecting commerce to virtue. Hence, for example, I > see no reason not to ban cigarettes - smoking is a vice. I used to be too > conservative because I was not convservative enough. > > " You claim that it is absurd that people, say, believe in the rapture or > that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Of course it is > absurd. But you do not say why you think people - many of them very > intelligent people - continue to believe it. " > > I don't believe I claimed anything of the kind. What people choose to > 'believe' is their own affair. I don't judge them for it, even as I am > astonished, personally, that they can hold such beliefs. > > Ah... you are " astonished, " but do not judge. Are you astonished, then, at > how sensible the believers are? > >> I do strongly object, however, to their tendency to marry their >> 'beliefs' to >the extent of codifying them into laws by which we must all >> abide. That, >for me, is too far. Furthermore, belief doesn't make >> something true. >The work of Copernicus and Galileo serve as evidence >> for that reality. > > Is it your opinion that C and G improved the life of the people? > > >>They had the courage to defent the " flat earth " geocentric theology of >> >their day, at huge personal risk. And it took 600 years for the church >>to >finally apologize to poor old Galileo and release his soul from >>purgatory >for his offense to an outworn and falacious dogma. Such is the >>result >when beliefs are too slow to yield to new truths, even when >>hardened >dogma shuts off the freely creative and open minds of millions >>to the >possibility that they are wrong. Today, most of readily >>acknowledge >>that the Sun is the center of our planetary system; but it was not always >> >acceptible of safe to hold such a POV. > > And perhaps in future those conditions will obtain again. > >>In the words of Gershwin: " the >things that your precha is lible to teach >>ya, it ain't necessarily so. " > > " That seems to me to be the important question. And, to repeat, the fact > that a powerful archetype (or more than one) is in play is no doubt part > of the answer. " > > I agree. > > " You want to overturn a powerful myth, you'd better have a powerful myth > of your own - that's my point. I don't think you've got it. " > >>The power myth, as you have called it, and our fascination and >addiction >>to it, has been the bane of human existence for too many >centuries IMO. > > > I didn't say " power myth, " I said " a powerful myth. " At present, to > repeat, the only myth as powerful as the religious one is that of natural > science. Imo, it won't do. > > >>It is long-passed time to try an alternative. > > OK. Waddya got? > > > As Wagner identified it so well in his Ring cycle of operas, and Nietzsche > his contemporary also discovered, the power drive ALWAYS and >ultimately > requires the renunciation of love to prevail. > > This would mean that love itself has no power, or is not powerful, which I > doubt. > > While it is not true that all you need is love, it is certainly true that > love is one of the things you need. > > > >That can never be the formula for our success as a species. > > " Success as a species. " Darwin again. If Darwin is right, then life really > is a tale told by an idiot, the " philosophy " that you yourself decry > above. But if Darwin represents the true speech about the origins, then > human life is indeed naturally empty and meaningless. > > >>ation and compassion must also be acknowledged as prime f>orces for >>our collective future. Of that I have no doubt. > > Why do you have no doubt? How do you know that these are the things most > needful? > >> So we start from different premeses Dan. And as long as we are tied to >> your " power myth " as the " only way " we are doomed to repeat, ad nauseum, >> the fate of our ancestors. Power, love and wisdom - all three are >> required, each properly balanced by the others. How about that as a >> replacement! It would be at least worthy of trying, sincerely. But >> balancing the three is much more difficult, requires far more skill and > creativity, than yielding to one over the other two, or to the exclusion > of them altogether. > > " DVC is a flash in the pan - it will soon be forgotten, just as Gibson's > film (remember?) has been just about forgotten. " > >>I am not an apologist for DVC. I enjoyed reading it and found some >value >>to it. And I am instructed by observing the nerves it is probing, >> >especially within the RC community, who can perhaps become a bit >more >>self-reflective, > > Do you think the claims made in DVC are news to the Vatican? I don't. They > *have* thought about it. > > > >if they can pull themselves out of the hole in the sand long enough to > > >see the truths it contains. Some I know now a strong opinion of the > > >subject, having niether read the book, nor seen the movie, simply > > >because the " holy " fathers in the Vatican forbid them from doing so (yet > > >another example of the power drive in action). That, to me, is rather > > >pathetic. > > A thing can be pathetic without being unnecessary. > > >> And frankly, I refuse to waste my time discussing the matter with someone >> whose opinion is formed only by the fear of forming their own opinion, >> choosing instead the ignorance of the matter. For their opinion is only a >> prejudice, not a choice. > > " And, while I realy don't want to carry any water for the RCC, don't you > think that the Grand Inquisitor had a point? " > >>Yes, his role was the point man for the power-drive philosophy which >you >>seem to embrace. > > > No. He cared better for the many than Jesus did. That was his claim. And > I'm not sure he was wrong. > > >> He was successful, for a few centuries at least, in stifling dissent, >> >killing creativity and reinforcing fear as a primary motivation to " have >> >faith " . We now call that period the Dark Ages, not by accident. > > As opposed, presumably, to the " Enlightenment, " where we believe in > nothing but our own power to torture nature's secrets from her, in order > to bend her to our wills - speaking of the power drive. The Enlightenment > is all about power. > >> But I'm not convinced that he has won out in the end. I do have some >> hope that love, wisdom and MEANING can eventually have their day and that >> we can eventually look upon the Grand Inquisitor as a sad, quaint relic >> of our dark collective past. > > As always, I enjoy the debate. But now, back to " the real world. " > > Greg - dialectic *is* the real world. It's as real as it gets. > > Best regards, > > Dan Watkins > > > > > > > " 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 May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Dear Toni, Well, I can certainly cop to laziness. I can't see that human beings are equal in any meaningful sense. I don't trust people who say that all men are brothers or neighbors, and then claim that they love their meighbors as themselves. I doubt that that is possible. If it is possible at all, it is very rare. I don't believe in altruism (as Comte meant the term), although I do believe in friendship and love - but these things are particular. Otherwise, I don't see what's wrong with an admission of ignorance. Best, Dan ---- vienna19311 wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Toni, I don't think I took any position. I merely took up for the raptured ones because someone else was putting them down. Your coming at me makes me dislike your position. I don't have any axes to grind. I am 77 3/4 and have resolved most issues. Those I haven't I can live with not knowing. I don't think I have the psychic energy in my posts that some do; that to me always suggest psyche imbalance, and tells me that there is where I do not want to be. I paid my dues in activism, CCD teacher, room mother, fair worker, substitute teacher in Catholic schools, but it is never enough. I can say no, and glad that I can. Now I know what I am going to get to the above about how you can say no, also, and how we have to separate from the collective for the start of individuation. As far as I'm concerned I cannot be attacked because, I will ignore that psychic energy. You can respond, but with measured respect for my position. Betty --------------------------------------------------- Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus Pro 2006. No threat detected. Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Dear Betty, Attack? who? when? where? A difference of opinion yes, but attack? why would I? I was answering what you said to Greg which I enclose here. M y opinion is much different than yours. It has nothing to do with your lifestyle, only what you wrote below. I am not urging you or anyone on...I simply have a different way of looking at it, and, like everyone, I think mine is better. Just as you think yours is, or anyone who presents an idea. I am not coming " at " you any more than you came " at " Greg. As for liking or not liking my position...that's fine...we are different human beings, that's all.Liking or not liking have nothing to do with my position...I am not attempting to try to change ANYONE! No, I won't tell you how I say no. This wasn't about you and me, nor doing good " works " Nor valuing goodworks. Good heaven, at our age???? I was on a different wave length on the subject of " fundamentalists " not you or anyone in particular. Active and passive isn't much of a choice at our ages. I mentioned myself only on the subject of what a " contemplative life " might be like...not that I " have " it.MY point was that " contemplatives " to be true must also be " active " in work. I was replying to your and Martha interpretation. So now it is about respect? How did that get into this exchange of ideas? I have the utmost respect for you and for anyone i bother answering. As to respecting your position? does that mean I have to agree with you? This was in no way a personal " attack " . I am sorry you saw it that way. Peace...I have no ax to grind either. I respond when it suits me.just as you and everyone else. I know my boundries, Betty, and and I hope you know yours...there was no issue on attacking yours at all...or invading them. Respect? How could I not respect someone? Not by having a different opinion. I sure wouldn't bother to write to someone if I didn't think of respecting them as I respect myself. I guess you lost me there. Besides I may not find that which I consider someone's ideas,better or worse, that has nothing to do with respecting a human being. Sorry for anything you think you read that sounded " disrespectful " It sure wasn't meant that way...it never even occurs to me most of the time. In fact i am from a generation who hardly ever used that word...except to youngsters who were not mindful of politness and consideration to parents, teachers, elders. Toni...still scratching her head your post said: " Toni, I don't think I took any position. I merely took up for the raptured ones because someone else was putting them down. Your coming at me makes me dislike your position. I don't have any axes to grind. I am 77 3/4 and have resolved most issues. Those I haven't I can live with not knowing. I don't think I have the psychic energy in my posts that some do; that to me always suggest psyche imbalance, and tells me that there is where I do not want to be. I paid my dues in activism, CCD teacher, room mother, fair worker, substitute teacher in Catholic schools, but it is never enough. I can say no, and glad that I can. Now I know what I am going to get to the above about how you can say no, also, and how we have to separate from the collective for the start of individuation. As far as I'm concerned I cannot be attacked because, I will ignore that psychic energy. You can respond, but with measured respect for my position. Betty --------------------------------------------------- Re: Left Behind >I did not know the Greek word psyche meant butterfly. I should have moved > on, but didn't . > Your quote: > " When the mythical/religious interpretation takes us in a direction of > absolving us from doing something positive, within our lifetime, to move > us > toward to economic justice, environmental sanity and energy > sustainability, > instead of focusing on the Lehay idea of being a sheep rather than a goat > (as prescribed by his fundamentalist belief construct) then I question its > real value....even if it does satisfy the natural human longing for > 'homeostasis'. The two need not be mutually exclusive. " > > Aren't good decent lives,and good decent values going to take care of the > above without postulating pats on the back for activists. I don't know why > Greg, and I am probably projecting my own shadow, but self righteousness > about how much we can do, leaves out how much we are meant to do, and what > we are meant to do. This can lead astray as well.. One's person > homeostasis > is another person' psyche imbalance. Yours requires activism. Some others > may require a more contemplative approach. ( " Martha, Martha... " ages > old). > Regardless, seems someone is always judging the different positions, > instead > of holding the tension of the two. > I am being contrary today when I should be quiet. > Betty >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Toni, There were 2 positions laid out. The left behind and another. This other was critical of the first. I tried moderating the criticism, by saying some good things that can be said about these fundamentalist. I don't think I took a position. I may have come across as having done so, but I really don't have one. I wanted to suggest moderation in these two opposites. To point out the tension so it can be resolved. And Toni, you did come across upset with me. I should have said measured response instead of measured respect. This seems a mistake, and I am sorry. And scratching our head at each other, well, that is just built into our list dynamic. Love, betty --------------------------------------------------- Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus Pro 2006. No threat detected. Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 " Eve Neuhaus " eveneuhaus@... writes: >I think The DaVinci Code fills the bill exactly, Dan. >Eve >The question is, what, as " progressives, " do you and yours have to > counter it? What is your popular myth? Where is your blockbuster > series of novels that answers peoples' questions at the same time > as it entertains? Without a popular counterpoint, you are just > talking to yourselves. And, like onanism, that might feel good, but > it doesn't produce anything. Just a thought before this thread disappears... You have both missed the real relation here. The 'Left Behind' series is _their_ answer to the explosion of popular fiction. The fundies have themselves been lacking a 'popular myth' or at least a popular expression of their central myth since they (for the most part) are not the 'reading' sort of people and only absorb bits and pieces of the Rapture myth in their Sunday sermons. Many, many modern works of fantasy and fiction are at last as meaningful as the Left Behind series. But they are _different_ from the absolutist/exclusionist style we have learned to associate with 'religious' myth in the western world. I wouldn't expect an alternative to the rigid model that had oppressed people for centuries to be similarly rigid and oppressive, would you? There are now thousands of other world-views out there, not only the 'big names' like Tolkien and and LeGuin in fantasy and Herbert's 'Dune' and so on in sciene fiction, but so many others that you couldn't even compile a list. All these things are 'distractions' from the context that the fundies want everyone to believe in and _live_ in. In a sense, the 'Left Behind' books could be called an attempt to 're-appropriate' or 're-capture' the escaped imagination of those others who have abandoned the absolutist model. An certainly an attempt to prevent any more 'leakage' of their community. They contain within themselves the threat designed to frighten people into returning. --- A passage by Colin that I took the time to type into my notes is appropriate here: To read straight through a large number of accounts of witch trials, as I did before writing this chapter, is to begin to feel slightly insane. The accounts of tortures lead one to wonder whether human beings are ultimately redeemable; for every saint, the human race has apparently produced a hundred murderers capable of the last degree of viciousness. And the sheer absurdities to which so many of the accused confessed add a discordant note of farce to the tragedy. Yet oddly enough the final impression is one of pity -- a pity that embraces the accusers and accused. The human mind was never intended for narrowness, and when it is trapped, it becomes trivial and vicious. The real tragedy of Suffolk in 1645 is not that Hopkins hanged a hundred or so innocent people, but that human beings in general were so demoralised and devitalised that they could accept it. Village communites had become stagnant pools that bred pestilence. This is difficult for us to understand in the age of big cities and mass communication; we cannot imagine that kind of stagnation, in which the human mind had no escape from itself except through malicious gossip about the neighbors. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, all this began to change. The dividing line between that world of the past and our own world was an event that occured in the year 1740: the publication of the novel Pamela. The statement sounds absurd; but consider it more closely. Before wrote Pamela, the chief form of 'escapist' entertainment that issued from the printers was the pamphlet, usually with a title like A True Narration of the Horrible Crime Committed at York by So and So. The novels of Defoe, issued a quarter of a century before began to write, are enlarged pamphlets containing 'true narrations.' Pamela is a novel told in letters, a description of a girl's virtuous resistance to her would-be seducer, and it is very long. Its reader could enter the world of another person's life, and stay there for days on end. If we imagine Jane Austen, or the Brontë sisters, being brought up in a country vicarage in the year 1700, we can immediately grasp the import of what has happened. No doubt Jane Austen would still have read Homer and Dante and Shakespeare, and become a literate and articulate young lady; but it would not have been the same; the classics are bound to be a little remote. But 's Pamela and Clarissa, Rousseau's (or The New Héloise), Goethe's Werther, were entirely different; this was rich food for the emotions as well as the intellect. The human mind was like a bird when the cage has been left open. Novels poured from the presses; Byron's Corsair, 's Lady of the Lake, were romantic novels in verse. The plays of Shakespeare and Dryden and Sheriden could only be seen in the big cities; but these small pocket-size volumes could penetrate to the remotest corner of the remotest country. It is true, of course, that most people could not read; but that is a minor point. Anyone with enough intelligence to want to read could learn to do so -- the children of farm labourers as well as vicars. The creating of 'other worlds' became a major industry in the nineteenth century; novelists like Balzac, Hugo, Dickens, Trollope, set out to create an actual world as rich and complex as the real world. We take this for granted; we are used to having a choice of 'alternative worlds,' from Tolstoy and Flaubert to the latest soap opera on television. And we know that there were literary masterpieces long before : Chaucer, Malory, Montaigne, Cervantes, Rabelais, Boccaccio. We forget that there were so few of them, and that they were known only to scholars. Life inthe fifteenth century was dull and repetitive for everybody, from the lord of the manor and the local priest to the ploughman and the shepherd. There were probably as many imaginative and sensitive people as there are today -- at least in proportion to the population -- but they had no alternative to letting themselves grow as dull as their surroundings. The only touch of the bizarre or unusual that entered their lives was when a peddler offered a pamphlet containing the confessions of witches, or when the vicar warned them to avoid an old crone who could turn herself into a hare. -- Colin , The Occult, pg. 433-434 --- And in the last half-century of course, Tolkien's reinvigoration of fantasy has inspired a 'second revolution' or further departure from the everyday into the fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 " Greg " grieke1@... writes: >I, for one, have been alarmed with the political and social >implications of the LB folks, and how it colors their outlook >on life. My neighbor, a good, decent man to be sure, even >stated to me (quite earnestly) a few years ago that he didn't >much care about politics because the second coming, which will >likely occur within our lifetimes, will clear the air and all >the excesses of modern life that we could change (for the >better) are needless anyway, so why worry about them. Thus >for him, his " faith " has the effect of making him numb and >unmotivated to even care, so sure is he that he'll eventually >be counted as one of the sheep at the final rapture. Can one >not count this as blissful abdication bordering on irresponsible. >Yet he is drawn to this bizarre conclusion by way of his " faith " >in this series of novels, interpreted in the most literalistic >of ways. " bordering on irresponsible " BORDERING on!? This the sort of thing we associate with joke " doomsday cults " where people sell all their things and wait on a hillside with their leader for the world to end... but it's got a grip on a major segment of the population in this country! I have to agree with all expressions in this thread that the really scary thing about this is how much power it has in national politics. Our government has so much power in the world that they could very well bring about the sort of catastrophe this 'myth' teaches them to wish for. Yet the remaining opposition dares not even point out how looney it is for fear of being accused of disrespecting religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 Dear , Zimmerman wrote: "Eve Neuhaus" eveneuhaus@... writes: >I think The DaVinci Code fills the bill exactly, Dan. >Eve >The question is, what, as "progressives," do you and yours have to > counter it? What is your popular myth? Where is your blockbuster > series of novels that answers peoples' questions at the same time > as it entertains? Without a popular counterpoint, you are just > talking to yourselves. And, like onanism, that might feel good, but > it doesn't produce anything. Just a thought before this thread disappears... You have both missed the real relation here. The 'Left Behind' series is _their_ answer to the explosion of popular fiction. The fundies have themselves been lacking a 'popular myth' or at least a popular expression of their central myth since they (for the most part) are not the 'reading' sort of people and only absorb bits and pieces of the Rapture myth in their Sunday sermons. How do you know that they are not the "reading sort of people"? I think you are providing an example here of how the left finds itself successfully tagged as "elitist." I have met fundamentalists who can read Latin and Greek. Many, many modern works of fantasy and fiction are at last as meaningful as the Left Behind series. Meaningful? No doubt. Popular? I dunno. There are King, Tom Clancy, and the lawyer guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Grisham, that's it), but they don't really provide a countervailing myth. But they are _different_ from the absolutist/exclusionist style we have learned to associate with 'religious' myth in the western world. I wouldn't expect an alternative to the rigid model that had oppressed people for centuries to be similarly rigid and oppressive, would you? I don't find Christian fundamentalism to be particularly oppressive. Maybe it would be if fundamentalists held a near-monopoly of political power, but they won't- the commercial classes will never allow it. That said, for a "progressive" myth effectively to counter the fundamentalist myth, I think it will have to answer unequivically the existential questions - that is, it will have to be fairly rigid. There are now thousands of other world-views out there, not only the 'big names' like Tolkien and and LeGuin in fantasy and Herbert's 'Dune' and so on in sciene fiction, but so many others that you couldn't even compile a list. I found reading LeGuin to be torture. Maybe that's just me, but in any event she and the others are pretty high-falutin' as a counter to LB. Everybody has heard of LB. How many have heard of LeGuin? All these things are 'distractions' from the context that the fundies want everyone to believe in and _live_ in. In a sense, the 'Left Behind' books could be called an attempt to 're-appropriate' or 're-capture' the escaped imagination of those others who have abandoned the absolutist model. An certainly an attempt to prevent any more 'leakage' of their community. They contain within themselves the threat designed to frighten people into returning. --- A passage by Colin that I took the time to type into my notes is appropriate here: The wilson passage is almost unmitigated nonsense, but I don't have the time or the heart to attack it now. Maybe later. Suffice it to say that Mr. can't have any familiarity with Jung if he can write that "life in the fifteenth century was dull and repetitive for everybody, from the lord of the manor and the local priest to the ploughman and the shepherd." To compare Homer and Dante and Shakespeare to kitschy romantic schlock like _Werther_ , to the disadvantage of the former, leaves me uncertain whether to cry or laugh. Better to laugh, so as to avoid the spirit of gravity. In any event, does not seem to notice that the appearance of romantic trashy novels in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a reflection of the very loss of the rich interior and exterior spiritual life enjoyed by the fifteenth century man and woman. The appearance of the trashy kitsch novel reflects a "compensation," if a poor one, for the loss of the spiritual, numinous life. Lose the icons, get Byron, , Dickens and similar miserable dreck in return. A poor bargain. We need "other worlds" precisely when the real world becomes alien, alienated, and intolerable. This happened with the rise of modernity and "Enlightenment," well before 1740. The invention of the printing press was the worst, most destructive technological innovation ever - and no, I have not forgotten either nucular weapons, television, or even the hated telephone. Anyone who wants to have a book should be willing to copy one out. Jane Austen was a welcome throwback. Ancient authors are not remote if one knows how to read them, and I think she probably did. Well, I guess I did find the energy to attack it a little bit, after all. Best regards, Dan Watkins To read straight through a large number of accounts of witch trials, as I did before writing this chapter, is to begin to feel slightly insane. The accounts of tortures lead one to wonder whether human beings are ultimately redeemable; for every saint, the human race has apparently produced a hundred murderers capable of the last degree of viciousness. And the sheer absurdities to which so many of the accused confessed add a discordant note of farce to the tragedy. Yet oddly enough the final impression is one of pity -- a pity that embraces the accusers and accused. The human mind was never intended for narrowness, and when it is trapped, it becomes trivial and vicious. The real tragedy of Suffolk in 1645 is not that Hopkins hanged a hundred or so innocent people, but that human beings in general were so demoralised and devitalised that they could accept it. Village communites had become stagnant pools that bred pestilence. This is difficult for us to understand in the age of big cities and mass communication; we cannot imagine that kind of stagnation, in which the human mind had no escape from itself except through malicious gossip about the neighbors. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, all this began to change. The dividing line between that world of the past and our own world was an event that occured in the year 1740: the publication of the novel Pamela. The statement sounds absurd; but consider it more closely. Before wrote Pamela, the chief form of 'escapist' entertainment that issued from the printers was the pamphlet, usually with a title like A True Narration of the Horrible Crime Committed at York by So and So. The novels of Defoe, issued a quarter of a century before began to write, are enlarged pamphlets containing 'true narrations.' Pamela is a novel told in letters, a description of a girl's virtuous resistance to her would-be seducer, and it is very long. Its reader could enter the world of another person's life, and stay there for days on end. If we imagine Jane Austen, or the Brontë sisters, being brought up in a country vicarage in the year 1700, we can immediately grasp the import of what has happened. No doubt Jane Austen would still have read Homer and Dante and Shakespeare, and become a literate and articulate young lady; but it would not have been the same; the classics are bound to be a little remote. But 's Pamela and Clarissa, Rousseau's (or The New Héloise), Goethe's Werther, were entirely different; this was rich food for the emotions as well as the intellect. The human mind was like a bird when the cage has been left open. Novels poured from the presses; Byron's Corsair, 's Lady of the Lake, were romantic novels in verse. The plays of Shakespeare and Dryden and Sheriden could only be seen in the big cities; but these small pocket-size volumes could penetrate to the remotest corner of the remotest country. It is true, of course, that most people could not read; but that is a minor point. Anyone with enough intelligence to want to read could learn to do so -- the children of farm labourers as well as vicars. The creating of 'other worlds' became a major industry in the nineteenth century; novelists like Balzac, Hugo, Dickens, Trollope, set out to create an actual world as rich and complex as the real world. We take this for granted; we are used to having a choice of 'alternative worlds,' from Tolstoy and Flaubert to the latest soap opera on television. And we know that there were literary masterpieces long before : Chaucer, Malory, Montaigne, Cervantes, Rabelais, Boccaccio. We forget that there were so few of them, and that they were known only to scholars. Life inthe fifteenth century was dull and repetitive for everybody, from the lord of the manor and the local priest to the ploughman and the shepherd. There were probably as many imaginative and sensitive people as there are today -- at least in proportion to the population -- but they had no alternative to letting themselves grow as dull as their surroundings. The only touch of the bizarre or unusual that entered their lives was when a peddler offered a pamphlet containing the confessions of witches, or when the vicar warned them to avoid an old crone who could turn herself into a hare. -- Colin , The Occult, pg. 433-434 --- And in the last half-century of course, Tolkien's reinvigoration of fantasy has inspired a 'second revolution' or further departure from the everyday into the fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 dwatkins9@... writes: > > Dear , > > How do you know that they are not the " reading sort of people " ? I think > you are providing an example here of how the left finds itself > successfully tagged as " elitist. " I have met fundamentalists who can > read Latin and Greek. > But _what_ do they read in Latin or Greek? Most likely the Bible and some of the early 'Church Fathers' but never anything unapproved by their community like Ancient Greek literature. The fear and hatred of imagination or fantasy by the Christian fundamentalist community is well known. Every so often another attack on the FRPG (Fantasy Role Playing Game) community makes the news though most of the 'faithful' know better than to let any of their children get involved in it now so it's much less often than in the past. The Harry Potter books recently stirred them up again, though. These are matters of public record not worth citing. You can find more than enough information easily. Of course, even an honest study of the 'safe' Bible can be dangerous. Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist as a college student, and was led to his career as a New Testament Scholar precisely by his devotion to religion. But after decades of studying the actual 'Word of God' he has concluded that it is unreliable. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman Although Ehrman has a strong background in Evangelical Christianity, having attending both Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College (B.A., 1978), his personal beliefs have shifted over time. Ehrman now considers himself an agnostic. --- Which has, of course, upset the fundamentalist community he came from. --- http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/misquotingjesus.htm Keep in mind that if you are a modern, multiple-choice, Bible of the Month Club promoter, who thinks such conflicting versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc. are “better and more reliable” than the King Holy Bible, then you have fallen into the trap of men who do not believe The Bible, in any language, including “the original languages”, IS NOW the inspired, complete, and 100% true words of God. You will end up believing just as they do. I'm not saying you will become an agnostic like Mr. Ehrman, but you will not believe that any Bible in any language IS NOW the inerrant words of God. Guaranteed. It will not fail to happen. --- In other words, don't you dare allow any variation or nuance into your worldview or you are no longer one of the 'elect'. So how much fiction do you suppose this sort of person reads? Until the 'Left Behind' series, just about zero. They would be rejected by their fellow drones if they started to think about anything. If noticing that rigid people are rigid is 'elitism' then the world is absolutely full of elitists. > >>Many, >>many modern works of fantasy and fiction are at last as meaningful as the >>Left Behind series. > > > Meaningful? No doubt. Popular? I dunno. There are King, Tom > Clancy, and the lawyer guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Grisham, > that's it), but they don't really provide a countervailing myth. > King is a sometime fantasy author. He's more known for horror. In neither genre is he very good. So we can agree that 'popular' is not automatically the same as 'good'. The rest are just ordinary fiction authors. They are not even attempting to create a 'secondary world', just writing fiction set in our world. The authors I cited (Tolkien, , Le Guin, S. Beagle and many others in fantasy, Herbert and even old standards like Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradury in SciFi, and many others) are more relevant because they do provide a worldview, they just don't cram it down your throat. (Well, comes close actually...) That these authors aren't at the head of some sort of political movement, and don't provide a _single_ monolithic countervailing myth, is a plus in my view. >>But they are _different_ from the >>absolutist/exclusionist style we have learned to associate with >>'religious' >>myth in the western world. I wouldn't expect an alternative to the rigid >>model that had oppressed people for centuries to be similarly rigid and >>oppressive, would you? > > > I don't find Christian fundamentalism to be particularly oppressive. You've never been in their power, then. > Maybe it would be if fundamentalists held a near-monopoly of political > power, but they won't- the commercial classes will never allow it. That > said, for a " progressive " myth effectively to counter the fundamentalist > myth, I think it will have to answer unequivically the existential > questions - that is, it will have to be fairly rigid. > Why does there have to be a single 'counter' to their monolithic myth? Why can't there just be freedom of thought? The 'myth' created by Tolkien points up the danger of becoming like your enemy. Using the One Ring just makes you the next Dark Lord, it doesn't solve the problem. > >>There are now thousands of other world-views out >>there, not only the 'big names' like Tolkien and and LeGuin in >>fantasy >>and Herbert's 'Dune' and so on in sciene fiction, but so many >>others >>that you couldn't even compile a list. > > > I found reading LeGuin to be torture. Maybe that's just me, but in any > event she and the others are pretty high-falutin' as a counter to LB. > Everybody has heard of LB. How many have heard of LeGuin? > Lots of people have heard of Le Guin. And again, I consider the variation, the NON-monolithic nature of Fantasy and SciFi literature to be a plus. That their isn't any one name dominating the genre(s) is a good thing. If you don't like one author's style, you can read something else. Fundamentalists don't have this freedom, and don't want to allow it for anyone else. Fortunately they don't _yet_ have the power to enforce their fanaticism. But not for lack of trying. >> >>--- >>A passage by Colin that I took the time to type into my notes is >>appropriate here: > > > The wilson passage is almost unmitigated nonsense, but I don't have the > time or the heart to attack it now. Maybe later. Suffice it to say that > Mr. can't have any familiarity with Jung if he can write that > " life in the fifteenth century was dull and repetitive for everybody, > from the lord of the manor and the local priest to the ploughman and the > shepherd. " To compare Homer and Dante and Shakespeare to kitschy > romantic schlock like _Werther_ , to the disadvantage of the former, > leaves me uncertain whether to cry or laugh. Better to laugh, so as to > avoid the spirit of gravity. > Granted, there is nothing in the new 'popular' literature that you cannot find in the classics, and yet plenty in the classics that cannot be found in the new 'popular' literature. So 's insight is a bit out of focus in this respect. It was the accessibility of fiction of any sort, rather than the particular nature of the new literature, that seems to have made the difference. > In any event, does not seem to notice that the appearance of > romantic trashy novels in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a > reflection of the very loss of the rich interior and exterior spiritual > life enjoyed by the fifteenth century man and woman. The appearance of > the trashy kitsch novel reflects a " compensation, " if a poor one, for > the loss of the spiritual, numinous life. Lose the icons, get Byron, > , Dickens and similar miserable dreck in return. A poor bargain. We > need " other worlds " precisely when the real world becomes alien, > alienated, and intolerable. This happened with the rise of modernity > and " Enlightenment, " well before 1740. > Rich interior life? Maybe among the wealthy who already had access to education. The typical peasants of the Medieval period and even the Renaissance weren't even considered human by the upper classes. Maybe the ordinary people of the ancient world were more interesting because the culture was still truly an oral tradition and though there was 'orthodoxy' it wasn't nearly as rigid and outright paranoid as the Christian era. And yes, the world became 'alien' when Christianity was imposed by force -- which was well before the Renaissance everywhere in Europe. After that living mythology was a crime called 'heresy' and got you tortured to death. I think it was the 14th century when the last 'pagan' state in Europe was intimdated into converting. A quick Google shows that it was Lithuania in 1387. Anyway, what is noticing, if imperfectly, is the rebirth of mythology after it was crushed by Christian 'orthodoxy'. > The invention of the printing press was the worst, most destructive > technological innovation ever - and no, I have not forgotten either > nucular weapons, television, or even the hated telephone. Anyone who > wants to have a book should be willing to copy one out. > If not for the printing press you'd be behind an ox plowing a field somewhere. Or possibly doing hand-work in some town shop. Mass eduaction is only possible with the printing press. You would accept this just to not have 'trashy' literature exist? > Jane Austen was a welcome throwback. Ancient authors are not remote if > one knows how to read them, and I think she probably did. > > Well, I guess I did find the energy to attack it a little bit, after all. > > Best regards, > > Dan Watkins > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Dear , Zimmerman wrote: dwatkins9@... writes: Dear , How do you know that they are not the "reading sort of people"? I think you are providing an example here of how the left finds itself successfully tagged as "elitist." I have met fundamentalists who can read Latin and Greek. But _what_ do they read in Latin or Greek? Most likely the Bible and some of the early 'Church Fathers' but never anything unapproved by their community like Ancient Greek literature. Another assumption. You can't well defend yourself against an argument with which you are not familiar, so certainly it is in their interest to know their enemies. Hence the Jesuits (for a long time I couldn't understand why they were both scholars *and* torturers until - doh! - it finally hit me - those are just two different ways of defending the church, which was their mission). However, if your point is that everyone should read classical literature, I heartily agree. The fear and hatred of imagination or fantasy by the Christian fundamentalist community is well known. Every so often another attack on the FRPG (Fantasy Role Playing Game) community makes the news though most of the 'faithful' know better than to let any of their children get involved in it now so it's much less often than in the past. The Harry Potter books recently stirred them up again, though. These are matters of public record not worth citing. You can find more than enough information easily. Of course, even an honest study of the 'safe' Bible can be dangerous. Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist as a college student, and was led to his career as a New Testament Scholar precisely by his devotion to religion. But after decades of studying the actual 'Word of God' he has concluded that it is unreliable. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman Although Ehrman has a strong background in Evangelical Christianity, having attending both Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College (B.A., 1978), his personal beliefs have shifted over time. Ehrman now considers himself an agnostic. --- Which has, of course, upset the fundamentalist community he came from. --- http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/misquotingjesus.htm Keep in mind that if you are a modern, multiple-choice, Bible of the Month Club promoter, who thinks such conflicting versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc. are “better and more reliable” than the King Holy Bible, then you have fallen into the trap of men who do not believe The Bible, in any language, including “the original languages”, IS NOW the inspired, complete, and 100% true words of God. You will end up believing just as they do. I'm not saying you will become an agnostic like Mr. Ehrman, but you will not believe that any Bible in any language IS NOW the inerrant words of God. Guaranteed. It will not fail to happen. --- In other words, don't you dare allow any variation or nuance into your worldview or you are no longer one of the 'elect'. So how much fiction do you suppose this sort of person reads? Until the 'Left Behind' series, just about zero. Tom Clancy? War novels? Romance novels? They would be rejected by their fellow drones if they started to think about anything. If noticing that rigid people are rigid is 'elitism' then the world is absolutely full of elitists. I have nothing against elitism as such. Nature is aristocratic, as Jung notes repeatedly. It is questionable, to say the least, whether human beings are created equal in any meaningful sense. My point was, if the left wants to start winning elections in the United States, telling a third of the nation what stupid, rigid drones they are is not a good tactic. Telling the people that they evolved by accident, that they have no cosmic support, that their souls are an accidental function of their bodies, and that their lives are essentially meaningless tales told by an idiot is not a good tactic either. If Christianity is a myth, it is a healthy myth, again as Jung states repeatedly (he shows a strong preference for the Catholic version). An excellent system of psychotherapy, he calls it in one place. What is the left's excellent system of psychotherapy? You're alone in the universe and nobody cares - deal with it? That said, what's so bad about rigidity? Depends upon what one is rigid about, I would think. The secular left is, in my observation, plenty rigid about certain things. The trick is to be rigid about the right things. Many, many modern works of fantasy and fiction are at last as meaningful as the Left Behind series. Meaningful? No doubt. Popular? I dunno. There are King, Tom Clancy, and the lawyer guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Grisham, that's it), but they don't really provide a countervailing myth. King is a sometime fantasy author. He's more known for horror. In neither genre is he very good. So we can agree that 'popular' is not automatically the same as 'good'. We can probably agree that popular is automatically the same as "not good." Not that I don't read King - I do. I like many things that are not good. Vampires aren't fantasy? (Flip side of the Christian myth - vampire = anti-Christ) The rest are just ordinary fiction authors. They are not even attempting to create a 'secondary world', just writing fiction set in our world. The authors I cited (Tolkien, , Le Guin, S. Beagle and many others in fantasy, Herbert and even old standards like Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradury in SciFi, and many others) are more relevant because they do provide a worldview, they just don't cram it down your throat. (Well, comes close actually...) LOL! He's the only one you mentioned that I like :-). That these authors aren't at the head of some sort of political movement, and don't provide a _single_ monolithic countervailing myth, is a plus in my view. But they are _different_ from the absolutist/exclusionist style we have learned to associate with 'religious' myth in the western world. I wouldn't expect an alternative to the rigid model that had oppressed people for centuries to be similarly rigid and oppressive, would you? I don't find Christian fundamentalism to be particularly oppressive. You've never been in their power, then. And why would I be? They will not gain the kind of tyranical power that will allow them to force me (to think they will is a paranoid fantasy, imo). All they can do is threaten me with hell fire, and that does not move me. What's the big deal? Maybe it would be if fundamentalists held a near-monopoly of political power, but they won't- the commercial classes will never allow it. That said, for a "progressive" myth effectively to counter the fundamentalist myth, I think it will have to answer unequivically the existential questions - that is, it will have to be fairly rigid. Why does there have to be a single 'counter' to their monolithic myth? Why can't there just be freedom of thought? Because ordinary human beings are not philosophers, and don't have the same needs as philosophers. Philosophy stands or falls on free inquiry, but the city depends on substantial uniformity of opinion - e.g. "we hold these truths to be self-evident, etc." What happens to the American regime (the one that I know well enough to talk about) if people know longer believe that? But the philosopher as philosopher must question it. The 'myth' created by Tolkien points up the danger of becoming like your enemy. Using the One Ring just makes you the next Dark Lord, it doesn't solve the problem. There are now thousands of other world-views out there, not only the 'big names' like Tolkien and and LeGuin in fantasy and Herbert's 'Dune' and so on in sciene fiction, but so many others that you couldn't even compile a list. I found reading LeGuin to be torture. Maybe that's just me, but in any event she and the others are pretty high-falutin' as a counter to LB. Everybody has heard of LB. How many have heard of LeGuin? Lots of people have heard of Le Guin. Lots, surely - but as many as have heard of LB? No. Almost everyone literate in a European language has heard of LB. And again, I consider the variation, the NON-monolithic nature of Fantasy and SciFi literature to be a plus. That their isn't any one name dominating the genre(s) is a good thing. If you don't like one author's style, you can read something else. Fundamentalists don't have this freedom, and don't want to allow it for anyone else. Fortunately they don't _yet_ have the power to enforce their fanaticism. But not for lack of trying. --- A passage by Colin that I took the time to type into my notes is appropriate here: The wilson passage is almost unmitigated nonsense, but I don't have the time or the heart to attack it now. Maybe later. Suffice it to say that Mr. can't have any familiarity with Jung if he can write that "life in the fifteenth century was dull and repetitive for everybody, from the lord of the manor and the local priest to the ploughman and the shepherd." To compare Homer and Dante and Shakespeare to kitschy romantic schlock like _Werther_ , to the disadvantage of the former, leaves me uncertain whether to cry or laugh. Better to laugh, so as to avoid the spirit of gravity. Granted, there is nothing in the new 'popular' literature that you cannot find in the classics, and yet plenty in the classics that cannot be found in the new 'popular' literature. So 's insight is a bit out of focus in this respect. It was the accessibility of fiction of any sort, rather than the particular nature of the new literature, that seems to have made the difference. In any event, does not seem to notice that the appearance of romantic trashy novels in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a reflection of the very loss of the rich interior and exterior spiritual life enjoyed by the fifteenth century man and woman. The appearance of the trashy kitsch novel reflects a "compensation," if a poor one, for the loss of the spiritual, numinous life. Lose the icons, get Byron, , Dickens and similar miserable dreck in return. A poor bargain. We need "other worlds" precisely when the real world becomes alien, alienated, and intolerable. This happened with the rise of modernity and "Enlightenment," well before 1740. Rich interior life? Maybe among the wealthy who already had access to education. "'Bildung' nennen sie es, und blinzeln." It's not about what we call education, or even about a genuine classical education. What the fifteenth century man and woman had, again per Jung, was the Church, her cosmology, her God, her saints, which were *everywhere*. This is what he means when he says that the world was numinous. The medieval man had a coherent world where his psychological problems and needs were projected in accordance with a common myth, and hence *taken care of*. I persist in my suggestion that the Enlightened have nothing to offer that can match that. For men of minds of perculiar structure? maybe. For ordinary men? No. The typical peasants of the Medieval period and even the Renaissance weren't even considered human by the upper classes. Maybe the ordinary people of the ancient world were more interesting because the culture was still truly an oral tradition and though there was 'orthodoxy' it wasn't nearly as rigid and outright paranoid as the Christian era. Agreed. But that is too much to ask now. We have lost almost all contact with that. We still have a thread to the medieval world, insofar as Christtianity and Judaism survive. And yes, the world became 'alien' when Christianity was imposed by force -- which was well before the Renaissance everywhere in Europe. After that living mythology was a crime called 'heresy' and got you tortured to death. I think it was the 14th century when the last 'pagan' state in Europe was intimdated into converting. A quick Google shows that it was Lithuania in 1387. Anyway, what is noticing, if imperfectly, is the rebirth of mythology after it was crushed by Christian 'orthodoxy'. Well, idosyncratic mythology, perhaps. But I wonder if that is not over-valued. For myself, I don't have that kind of reverence for my own imagination. The invention of the printing press was the worst, most destructive technological innovation ever - and no, I have not forgotten either nucular weapons, television, or even the hated telephone. Anyone who wants to have a book should be willing to copy one out. If not for the printing press you'd be behind an ox plowing a field somewhere. Or possibly doing hand-work in some town shop. Or possibly copying manuscripts in some tower. Cool. Education was available for the natural elite - if that does not include me, well, then I belong in the shop or behind the plow. Fair dues. Mass eduaction is only possible with the printing press. Mass education is not possible *with* the printing press. A mass cannot be enlightened - only an individual can be enlightened. This is one of Jung's points in banging on against the "Enlightenment." Learning formulae does not equal knowing mathematics (for example). And only some individuals are able to be enlightened, even with the right teaching. Best regards, Dan You would accept this just to not have 'trashy' literature exist? Jane Austen was a welcome throwback. Ancient authors are not remote if one knows how to read them, and I think she probably did. Well, I guess I did find the energy to attack it a little bit, after all. Best regards, Dan Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 " Dan and Watkins " dwatkins9@... writes: > Dear , > > Zimmerman wrote: >> >>But _what_ do they read in Latin or Greek? Most likely the Bible and some of >>the early 'Church Fathers' but never anything unapproved by their community >>like Ancient Greek literature. >> > > Another assumption. You can't well defend yourself against an argument > with which you are not familiar, so certainly it is in their interest to > know their enemies. Hence the Jesuits (for a long time I couldn't > understand why they were both scholars *and* torturers until - doh! - it > finally hit me - those are just two different ways of defending the > church, which was their mission). However, if your point is that > everyone should read classical literature, I heartily agree. > And how many of them would be reading those evil, occultism-promoting fantasy or scifi novels? Wouldn't that be the 'defenders of the faith' rather than the rank and file? And for the very narrow purpose of figuring out how to discourage or prevent others from reading them. I don't know that I would hold out classical literature as the only, or even the best, exercise for the imagination. It's from a very different era. But some sort of engagement of the imagination is really necessary to develop a true human being. Undeveloped human beings tend to be the vicious peasants that Colin was observing on. Literature is good, the relatively small proportion of movies and television that are actually creative and interesting would be good, maybe even computer games (as long as they aren't the mindless 'first person shooter' type) might be good, too. All of these give some exercise to the imagination. >>In other words, don't you dare allow any variation or nuance into your >>worldview or you are no longer one of the 'elect'. So how much fiction do >>you suppose this sort of person reads? Until the 'Left Behind' series, just >>about zero. >> > > Tom Clancy? War novels? Romance novels? > War novels and spy novels like Tom Clancy or other Cold War flag-waving is probably tolerated by all but the most strict sects since it promotes the nationalism and militarism that this pseudo-religious movement is really about. The " Left Behind " series really fits into this genre better than any other. It's just on a larger scale than usual. The genuinely LAST world war, as it were. But how much _imagination_ do you find in these sorts of works? I'd say they were the literary equivalent of the 'first person shooter' video game. Repetitive and formulaic. Even the 'supernatural' aspects of the " Left Behind " series are meant to be doctrinal, not speculative. They don't think it's fiction like most of us consider a fantasy novel to be fiction. They think it's a presentation of things that will really happen. A 'rehearsal' as it were. In other words, they don't seem to distinguish between fantasy and reality quite as clearly as people of a more modern mindset. Romance novels are a matter of definition. I suppose something like 'Pamela' would be considered good 'moral' fiction these days. Most contemporary NYT Bestseller list fiction, with explicit sexual content, would be considered pornography. (Though I would tend to agree with the 'fundamentalists' that these are mostly useless trash anyway... >>They would be rejected by their fellow drones if they started to >>think about anything. If noticing that rigid people are rigid is 'elitism' >>then the world is absolutely full of elitists. >> > I have nothing against elitism as such. Nature is aristocratic, as Jung > notes repeatedly. It is questionable, to say the least, whether human > beings are created equal in any meaningful sense. My point was, if the > left wants to start winning elections in the United States, telling a > third of the nation what stupid, rigid drones they are is not a good > tactic. Telling the people that they evolved by accident, that they have > no cosmic support, that their souls are an accidental function of their > bodies, and that their lives are essentially meaningless tales told by > an idiot is not a good tactic either. If Christianity is a myth, it is a > healthy myth, again as Jung states repeatedly (he shows a strong > preference for the Catholic version). An excellent system of > psychotherapy, he calls it in one place. What is the left's excellent > system of psychotherapy? You're alone in the universe and nobody cares - > deal with it? > Well, if we are talking about the whole breadth and depth of things that fall into the field of 'Christianity' then yes, you can certainly find examples of positive religion under 'Christianity'. We were discussing the 'fundamentalist' movement, though. Not exactly the whole of Christianity. In fact, they seem to be driving the decline of Christianity. Their nutty extremism makes more rational people afraid to identify themselves as Christians. And I really don't expect that anyone who falls into the 'fundamentalist' movement would have any reasonable chance of supporting anything that I regard as important so I'm not in the least concerned about appealing to them in that sense. The very high proportion of their children who are revolted and do not continue in their parents' radical ideology are of much more interest. Communicating with them is likely to be complicated by their tendency to resentment of anything 'religious' though... The real key to the political future of the United States is whether the 40 percent or more of eligible voters who do NOT vote, but who are about 80 or 90 percent Democratic in sympathies, will ever get off their collective arses and actually vote. > That said, what's so bad about rigidity? Depends upon what one is rigid > about, I would think. The secular left is, in my observation, plenty > rigid about certain things. The trick is to be rigid about the right things. > Yes, very true. Rigid adherence to LITERAL interpretations of ancient scriptures that come from alien cultures is the wrong type of rigidity. This sort of stupid rigidity is what I mean by 'fundamentalism'. There are still many 'Christians' who are perhaps simplistic in their (unexamined) beliefs without necessarily being 'fundamentalists'. >>> >>>Meaningful? No doubt. Popular? I dunno. There are King, Tom >>>Clancy, and the lawyer guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Grisham, >>>that's it), but they don't really provide a countervailing myth. >> >> King is a sometime fantasy author. He's more known for horror. In >>neither genre is he very good. So we can agree that 'popular' is not >>automatically the same as 'good'. >> > > > We can probably agree that popular is automatically the same as " not > good. " Not that I don't read King - I do. I like many things > that are not good. > " By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece. " -- G. K. Chesterton, " On Detective Novels, " Generally Speaking (Not exactly a radical in any of his fields of accomplishment, was he? It's true that 'popular' is usually 'lowest common denominator' but that is not an absolute. And the fact that something genuinely 'good' can occasionally attain mass appeal offers intriguing possibilities that the lowest common denominator does not have to rule forever. > Vampires aren't fantasy? (Flip side of the Christian myth - vampire = > anti-Christ) > How many 'fundamentalist' Christians do you know of that read 'vampire novels' (like Ann Rice, I presume?) or watch vampire movies? They generally consider this favorable publicity for occultism (even if the vampires are clearly evil and defeated by the 'good guys' in the end) just like they regard the Harry Potter books as promoting occultism. >> >>Why does there have to be a single 'counter' to their monolithic myth? Why >>can't there just be freedom of thought? >> > Because ordinary human beings are not philosophers, and don't have the > same needs as philosophers. Philosophy stands or falls on free inquiry, > but the city depends on substantial uniformity of opinion - e.g. " we > hold these truths to be self-evident, etc. " What happens to the American > regime (the one that I know well enough to talk about) if people know > longer believe that? But the philosopher as philosopher must question it. > It's not a matter of 'questioning' in the sense of challenging. It's a matter of thinking enough to recognize the proper practical application of an abstract principle. And recognizing a hoodwink where the abstract principle is simply used as cover for a crime. The world is too complex for masses to continue to be herded around like sheep following a trusted leader anymore. Well, actually, the world has _always_ been too complex for that. But the price for allowing it to continue is growing greater all the time. The wars of the last century have shown what happens when people just continue to unthinkingly obey the usual power structures. Complex rational systems have been developed to manipulate all aspects of economy and culture well beyond their old limits. As Jung himself said, " Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself. " 'Ordinary' human beings are going to have to become at least part-time philosophers for their own good, and each others' good, because development of individuals is the only way to prevent ever larger and more powerful movements of mass insanity. > >> >>Rich interior life? Maybe among the wealthy who already had access to >>education. >> > > " 'Bildung' nennen sie es, und blinzeln. " > > It's not about what we call education, or even about a genuine classical > education. What the fifteenth century man and woman had, again per Jung, > was the Church, her cosmology, her God, her saints, which were > *everywhere*. This is what he means when he says that the world was > numinous. The medieval man had a coherent world where his psychological > problems and needs were projected in accordance with a common myth, and > hence *taken care of*. I persist in my suggestion that the Enlightened > have nothing to offer that can match that. For men of minds of perculiar > structure? maybe. For ordinary men? No. > Yes, the seamless world-myth of the medieval man was much less " disturbing " psychologically. A mindless peasant could happily remain a mindless peasant and think he was morally right and at peace with the universe as long as he obeyed his rulers and the laws they created for him -- even if he was in fact morally and spiritually bankrupt. Helping to slaughter the peasants of the neighboring kingdom for example, because his king had told him to and the priests had said 'God' was on their side. Sort of like contemporary jingoists (religious or otherwise) who think the USA is 'the greatest country in the world', the moral beacon of humanity, no matter what it is actually doing in practice -- like invading countries without justification and then murdering civilians in said occupied countries for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This mistaking the ideal for the reality of medieval life was mercilesly satired by Mark Twain in " A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court " even in the 19th century. I think there have been a few other such satires but I can't think of them at the moment. The satirists don't seem to be slowing the nostalgia movement down much, do they? (Hmm, so really the 'revival' of pseudo-medieval fantasy led by Tolkien is not quite 'lightning from a clear sky' as claimed. It's a new wrinkle in a long-running thread, probably dating from the Enlightenment when the attack on medieval ideals began.) > > Well, idosyncratic mythology, perhaps. But I wonder if that is not > over-valued. For myself, I don't have that kind of reverence for my own > imagination. > The individual imagination is rarely very productive, no. But when large numbers of people share their imaginings, new things emerge. This is why the _proliferation_ of fiction is actually good even if most of it is trash. Call it psychic evolution. The new mutations have to be sent out into the world to see if they can survive. Most of them don't, of course. But a few do, and they are then imitated (the 'reproduction' of ideas) and the whole nature of the community imagination develops in a new direction. Even before the 'information economy' of the computer age we could not have calculated the value of this sort of cultural free-association. Now the power and importance of this process has been increased by orders of magnitude. > > Mass education is not possible *with* the printing press. A mass cannot > be enlightened - only an individual can be enlightened. This is one of > Jung's points in banging on against the " Enlightenment. " Learning > formulae does not equal knowing mathematics (for example). And only some > individuals are able to be enlightened, even with the right teaching. > But without at least the opportunity for education the 'mass' remains a 'mass'. You have to try to reach the individual(s) in the 'uneducated' state. You seem to be assuming that because this doesn't always work it shouldn't be done at all. Yes, to-date mass education has been used primarily to train factory workers and empower the industrial state for its bouts of destructive insanity. But does that mean this is the only way it can be applied? 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.