courtesan...
On Jan 30, 7:14 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Who could afford it? :-) I read the reviews a couple of years ago and > have scouted Amazon where it is nearly half it's original price of > $195. Even our library has only one copy- pending- and it will reside > in the non-circulating arena- downtown. Maybe I will browse it first. > The comparison to Wm. Blake seems valid. I also thought of Chagall and > another contemporary who pens stuff on paintings of dreamy women. I > desk by a Japanese coutesan reading a scroll, come to think of it! > Undeciphered. Anyway, Jung published "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" > in 1933- after the "Red Book" but it's dull. In fact, Campbell seemed > dull or overwhelming last week so I needed some illustrations and > color myself- I switched to Larousse- "World Mythology". Campbell did > publish books with eye-appeal in his historical atlases of myth before > his death- I have two- one inscribed- haven't read either, however. > Someone has to do the cooking around this joint. :-)// Great > suggestion, Gabby! > > On Jan 28, 9:19 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mol&Rigs, listening to you two I've been asking myself why none of > > you mentions Jung and his description of the collective unconscious. I > > haven't read the Red Book yet, but maybe of of you has and could tell > > me why this is irrelevant to what you are discussing. > > > On Jan 27, 2:35 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The paramount paradox. > > > > On Jan 27, 8:21 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I > > > > was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series > > > > aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could > > > > keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so > > > > much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled > > > > ideas! :-) Oh, dear! > > > > > However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider > > > > there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet > > > > that is our struggle to bridge- if possible. > > > > > On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around > > > > > the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to > > > > > common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time, > > > > > isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This > > > > > phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us > > > > > that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says, > > > > > looking within. > > > > > > On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what > > > > > > already exists. > > > > > > > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to > > > > > > prove > > > > > > that it has. > > > > > > > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral > > > > > > and > > > > > > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also > > > > > > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication. > > > > > > > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because > > > > > > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain > > > > > > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- > > > > > > it > > > > > > picks and chooses. > > > > > > > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age. > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an > > > > > > > 'entourage' > > > > > > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough > > > > > > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I > > > > > > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the > > > > > > > chance to > > > > > > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done > > > > > > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish > > > > > > > stature). > > > > > > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in > > > > > > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a > > > > > > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being > > > > > > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute > > > > > > > 'relativity' > > > > > > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The > > > > > > > chattering > > > > > > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place. > > > > > > > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an > > > > > > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would > > > > > > > have us > > > > > > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is > > > > > > > sensible. > > > > > > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the > > > > > > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! > > > > > > > (Oscar > > > > > > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an > > > > > > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner, > > > > > > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of > > > > > > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable > > > > > > > memory > > > > > > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps > > > > > > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the > > > > > > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > its support. > > > > > > > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit > > > > > > > concerns a > > > > > > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal > > > > > > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > rule). > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional > > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at > > > > > > > > least as > > > > > > > > a challenge?" > > > > > > > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found > > > > > > > > his view > > > > > > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant. > > > > > > > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his > > > > > > > > discourse > > > > > > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my > > > > > > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What > > > > > > > > damned > > > > > > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give > > > > > > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU ! > > > > > > > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are > > > > > > > > libraries > > > > > > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish > > > > > > > > to put > > > > > > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be > > > > > > > > everyone's, of > > > > > > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, > > > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take > > > > > > > > away from > > > > > > > > us. Truth is our Home. > > > > > > > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " > > > > > > > > home " > > > > > > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us > > > > > > > > come to > > > > > > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their > > > > > > > > happiness > > > > > > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't. > > > > > > > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet, > > > > > > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity > > > > > > > > where, > > > > > > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to > > > > > > > > focus on > > > > > > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of > > > > > > > > delicacies, > > > > > > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > what does not. > > > > > > > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is > > > > > > > > also there > > > > > > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as > > > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, > > > > > > > > decide and > > > > > > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material > > > > > > > > home-object in > > > > > > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, > > > > > > > > encompasses > > > > > > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our > > > > > > > > aim. > > > > > > > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is > > > > > > > > a build > > > > > > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I > > > > > > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It > > > > > > > > is all a > > > > > > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
