04 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KAnd I have to stand corrected regarding your note about the vowel -over here I misunderstood you because I read your comment in a harry.
The Catholic encyclopedia provides an alternative explanation for the origin of the title:
Most interpreters derive the name Mary from the Hebrew, considering it either as a compound word or as a simple. Miryam has been regarded as composed as a noun and a pronominal suffix, or of a noun and an adjective, or again of two nouns. Gesenius was the first to ...[text shortened]... ww.newadvent.org/cathen/15464a.htm
Vowel change, nothing to do with archetypes.
So I replied to you that ..."I disagree with the probability that Stella was meant to be stilla although I understand this thesis. In my opinion it is not a matter of a vowel change;". But this is a mistake of mine, so at my post please count as valid the following:
"Therefore I agree that Stella/ stilla is acceptable and I understand this thesis. It seems that it is indeed a matter of a vowel change." I was also confused because I read in a harry your quote "Vowel change, nothing to do with archetypes" and I falsely concluded that you rejected the idea of the archetypes. To be frank, it is yet unclear to me whether or not you reject the archetypes, so please comment and clarify your opinion.
All in all, my idea is that we are probably in front of archetypes that they derive from mystic QBLH and mystic Eastern traditions that they are older than the miscellaneous mythologies and the animistic/ shamanic etc traditions.
04 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWas this response meant for a different post? I doesn't seem to apply to the quoted text at all.
I disagree. I see a huge difference between Greek mythology and the OT. In Greek mythology, there are several gods. These gods experience jealousy and lust. Kronos eats children; Zeus has sexual liasons; Hera his wife curses his bastard children. There is rape and incest everywhere. To some extent the God depicted in the OT shows similar fury, destroying ci ...[text shortened]... ). But this is not a God who becomes lustful and commits rape and fosters illegitimate children.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou've got it the wrong way around: archetypes would be psychic patterns underlying cultural forms. In any case, I don't really see much difference (archetypally speaking) between Aboriginal mythology and others. Maybe you could be more explicit
You've got it the wrong way around: archetypes would be psychic patterns underlying cultural forms. In any case, I don't really see much difference (archetypally speaking) between Aboriginal mythology and others. Maybe you could be more explicit.
Mother/father, daughter/son, warrior, shaman ... These are a few archetypes that I'm sure you'll agree are universal. Sure, they will be expressed differently -- that isn't really the point.
You bet I'm confused. I really have no idea what an archetype is then.
Mother/father, daughter/son, warrior, shaman ... These are a few archetypes that I'm sure you'll agree are universal. Sure, they will be expressed differently -- that isn't really the point.
I would never have thought 'mother/father' as archetypal. Even granted that though, I am not sure what Aboriginal culture thinks about mother/father figures. Aboriginal kinship systems is extraordinarily complex however. (By 'Aboriginal', I mean specifically Australian Aboriginal.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleTo be frank, it is yet unclear to me whether or not you reject the archetypes, so please comment and clarify your opinion.
And I have to stand corrected regarding your note about the vowel -over here I misunderstood you because I read your comment in a harry.
So I replied to you that ..."I disagree with the probability that Stella was meant to be stilla although I understand this thesis. In my opinion it is not a matter of a vowel change;". But this is a mistake of mine, s y are older than the miscellaneous mythologies and the animistic/ shamanic etc traditions.
To be frank, I am not really sure myself. I think it has to be conceded that literary archetypes do exist. When we diachronically at literature, we do see the same figures frequently recurring. Is there really a substantial difference between Tiresias, the old man who warns Oedipus of forthcoming doom, and Gandalf, who warns Middle Earth of impending doom of Sauron? What I do dispute is that these have some kind of psychic origin, as Jungian psychology argues. Or, if I interpret Boss correctly, that these archetypes are needed as 'organising mental principles'. I don't think that these archetypes are universal. Possibly a more satisyfing account is found in postmodern theory: these archetypes are just social constructs. Or maybe they are just literary tropes that poets just like to play with.
I also think that there is something sketchy about claiming that archetypes have some functional purpose. As it seems to me, you and Boss believe that archetypes have some kind of social purpose. Boss says that the rise of the cult of Mary, her expanding role as the 'star of the sea', was needed to counteract the aggressiveness of the God of the OT. I just don't see that as plausible.
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KSo at last we now could agree that the archetypes exist;
[b]To be frank, it is yet unclear to me whether or not you reject the archetypes, so please comment and clarify your opinion.
To be frank, I am not really sure myself. I think it has to be conceded that literary archetypes do exist. When we diachronically at literature, we do see the same figures frequently recurring. Is there really a substantial di ...[text shortened]... to counteract the aggressiveness of the God of the OT. I just don't see that as plausible.[/b]
Furthermore, regarding the universality and the functional purpose of the archetypes, I think that they do are universal and that they do have a purpose. The archetypes are nothing more than a product of ours (an idea) that we offer in order to explain the reality (the physical world as we perceive it with our 6 senses). Then we build on those ideas, which due time they become theories, religions, philosophic systems, tales, myths, social constructs, you name it -they become an agent that forces us to act differently than we were acting before their becoming into the drastic agent as I explained, thus they are indeed the cause of the development of a certain attitude of ours. So once more it ‘s clear to me that the Human is a product of his products, the archetypes included, and of course for the time being I am confident that the archetypes have psychic origins as it is proposed by Jung.
I believe that these products have definitely a purpose. You see, they were used by our ancestors all around the dial as the cornerstones of their attempt to decipher and to understand the reality and to describe their connection with it. So I assume that the universal purpose of the archetypes is the establishment of miscellaneous core beliefs that they can then be used in order to set in motion miscellaneous theories regarding the reality. Of course a falsification is more than welcome.
😵
05 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, I guess the reason it didn't seem to apply to the quoted text at all is because it didn't apply to the quoted text at all 🙂
Review your second post.
But then, it doesn't apply to my second post either. Reread my second post in context of the post I was responding to. The phrase you may have missed is "in that regard".
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Sep 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy apologies. In my defence, I had read your post in the morning, thought about it through the day, then late at night decided to write down all my thoughts.
Well, I guess the reason it didn't seem to apply to the quoted text at all is because it didn't apply to the quoted text at all 🙂
But then, it doesn't apply to my second post either. Reread my second post in context of the post I was responding to. The phrase you may have missed is "in that regard".
However, I do not think that Greek mythology was really ever intended for children. I really can't image the Iliad as a bedtime story. I think these were more part of an oral culture enjoying gruesome stories.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KNo problem. Just wanted to clear things up.
My apologies. In my defence, I had read your post in the morning, thought about it through the day, then late at night decided to write down all my thoughts.
However, I do not think that Greek mythology was really ever intended for children. I really can't image the Iliad as a bedtime story. I think these were more part of an oral culture enjoying gruesome stories.
Well, I wasn't thinking about the Iliad. There's no reason to think that the Iliad was the start of Greek mythology, is there? Seems more likely that it incorporated elements from it, but then I'm not really up on it like I said earlier.
10 Sep 09
We may also go beyond the Greek myths and be more specific about the role of the archetypes in the development of the concept of the religions.
Another universal archetype is related to specific moral values, which the Human has to respect in full. The archetype is the “commandments/ constituents”: the Mosaic 10 commandments are balanced with the 8 constituents of Yoga (the yogi has to practice every day in order to avoid killing, to promote non-violence, to promote his ability to be truthful, sincere and honest, to abstain from stealing, to avoid sex for purely physical purpose and to give up greed).
The practice of the 10 Commandments and the practice of the 8 constituents of Yoga do not aim to offer purposes of passing judgment on others, but it is followed because these were considered the proper guidelines for sharpening one’s spiritual evolution.
It is interesting to me that, according to the Torah, Moses died when he was 120 years old, in 1272BC. And it is also interesting that Mahabharata is primary an account about the battle of Kurukshetra, which it was conducted around 1424BC. Since the 8 constituents of the Yoga are mentioned in Mahabharata, I cannot discard the probability that the concepts of the 10 commandments and of the 8 constituents of Yoga are not merely a product of the elite Western and Eastern religious personages of that period; also I cannot discard the possibility that these concepts are not merely a further interpretation of Hammurabi’ s idea -he ruled during 1796-1750 BC and he claimed, like Moses, that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people
😵
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetlebeetle you know i like Bob Dylan, and i read somewhere that he uses archetypical imagery in his lyrics. also i am aware that he intends that these should be vehicles for our own imagination, i just wondered if a thief was an archetypal and a joker also, if so, what do they represent?
We may also go beyond the Greek myths and be more specific about the role of the archetypes in the development of the concept of the religions.
Another universal archetype is related to specific moral values, which the Human has to respect in full. The archetype is the “commandments/ constituents”: the Mosaic 10 commandments are balanced with the 8 c ...[text shortened]... and he claimed, like Moses, that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people
😵
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDunno Rabbie, the archetypes are excellent food for thought.
beetle you know i like Bob Dylan, and i read somewhere that he uses archetypical imagery in his lyrics. also i am aware that he intends that these should be vehicles for our own imagination, i just wondered if a thief was an archetypal and a joker also, if so, what do they represent?
So I could think that the (food for thought) archetype “thief” could be related by Dylan to a universal inner fear for everybody who is able to destroy the social tissue and to become a fearful entity. Nobody likes a thief and everybody is ready to throw a stone to him forgetting that the “thief” can be potentially everyone of us at the dark side of the Mirror if only something could go wrong… In fact we do not try hard to really help every potential thief to overcome this attitude, which anyway is not his nature…
And the joker, who knows? The joker can be funny, brave like the famous Mathurine, tragic, fearless, stupid, dangerous, mocking, you name it -it can be whatever a person can be, a person that is not taken seriously by nobody. The citizen can be the joker, and the entity who takes not seriously the citizen nowdays are the miscellaneous centres of power...
But who knows what Dylan is really thinking about his thief and his joker?
😵
