Skip to main content

View Diary: One Flew Over the Crucifix (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, this need to prove (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee, rhubarb, SherwoodB

    the literally truth of the Christian Bible went back far earlier to the scholastics of the middle ages and the renaissance and gave us modern science in the form of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Gallileo. And eventually Newton.  

    •  yes indeed (7+ / 0-)

      I was just speaking to the relatively modern cultural idea that every word of the Bible must be true in the most reductionistic sense of that word.

      Fairly sure that the larger, and largely illiterate, Christian population was not trying to shoehorn the Bible into a modern scientific world view in the eras you mention.

      •  That is a good point! (5+ / 0-)

        They weren't--and they were in awe of miracles and wonders, when they weren't bone-tired from just trying to get by from day to day.  By which I mean that miracles and wonders can be essential means of providing life with meaning and wisdom.

        •  I like they way the two of you think (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, TrueBlueMajority

          You and redheron. Good stuff.

          What are you reading these days, timewarp? Anything pertinent to this subject?

          God bless our tinfoil hearts.

          by aitchdee on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:37:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aitchdee, Matt Z

            I haven't found anyone who can top James Hillman or Michael Ventura in the current climate. (Wolfgang Geigerich is insufferable I decided)

            There seems to be no time and space for depth (another favorite Hillman word) in this era of Facebook and Twitter.  

            Though I have been reading Sherman Alexie and Carolyn Forche.

            And thinking a lot about ai weiwei.

            •  Letters at 3am (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aitchdee, Matt Z


              His older stuff from the 80s and 90s at the LA Weekly was harder-hitting, but I still love him.

            •  Insufferable! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z, timewarp

              Okay, I'm being dragged bodily away from the computer here, but timewarp, someday we'll have to have a chat about Mr. Wolfgang Vanishing-Up-My-Own-Dialectical-Navel Geigerich, okay? He infuriates me!

              Have you followed the recent fireworks between him and Robert Romanyshyn? Middle of last year in Spring Journal he--WG--published the most uncollegial attack on a previous Spring essay by Romanyshyn (on melting-polar ice caps) that I have ever read in my life. It was a bloodbath; in a nutshell WG called for "gatekeeper" reinforcements and for Romanyshyn's expulsion from the archytypal psych. communtiy. I'm not sure why Spring Pubs or the guest editor Stanton Marlan (author of Black Sun and close friend of Hillman's) why he accepted it.

              Anyway, what a monstrous little pissant that man is. I'd love to hear your take. In the current issue of Spring, WG does a job on Jung and The Redbook, ostensibly exposing Jung as not only not-psychological, but basically an intellectually dishonest, mystical twit.

              God bless our tinfoil hearts.

              by aitchdee on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:14:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OMG! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aitchdee, Matt Z

                LOL, WG as dialectical asshole!

                Do you want to know what I really think?  

                I think that know one has a clue what the fuck WG is talking about, never have, never will.  Not even, esp, WG.  Wtf is the guy talking about?  Nothing. At. All.  Just a lot of cold hard inscrutable words. And always very cruel.  Now Romanyshyn is a passionate & principled guy who actually (seems to me) gives a shit about actual people & does not afraid to name bullshit where bullshit lies (Soul in Grief actually has both depth and accessibility).  

                The Spring newbies have been snowed by the guy, and are just too embarrassed to admit it (and once again, that god damned heroic ego turns traitor).  Notice con-artist Michael Conforti on the Board of Advisors or whatever the hell they are called.

                WG has been trashing the whole notion of archetypal psychology and been trying to wage war with Hillman  for years and years.  And now he wants to be the archetypal police? Oedipal Emperors clothes much?

                Please PM me--I'd love love to talk more!

                •  Great minds: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Matt Z, timewarp

                  When you first mentioned Wolfgang Geigerich, it was with the exclamation "OMG" that I promptly headed my reply. I deleted it before posting though, 'cause I feared you'd think I was some kind of an airhead or a groupie or something. Haha!

                  Oh yes, we will talk. I've been hoping to find somebody with whom to dish about our little psychologically rigorous, interiorilly negative friend. So keep an eye out for me tommorrow or Sunday; I've lots to say about WG's attack on Hillman (and the former's insistence upon the inferiority of the image--but let's still call it archtypal psychology, shall we?--boggle!) as well as the strange alliances he's managed to forge. I'm so glad we've found each other; do you know anyone else outside the community proper (though perhaps you're in?) who thinks about this stuff? LOL. :)

                  Honestly, to hear you affirm that WG is nothing but a grotesque inflation of a whole lot of dispeptic nothing just might save me from what was to be my next desperate attempt at making head or tail of him: boning-up on Hegal. Yes. Hegal.. Oy! And I thought WG was a torture to read!

                  But I was prepared to go there because I've been quite concerned to get a handle on the implications of WG for the future direction of archtypal psych as a movement--e.g., how influential is this guy, anyway? Are his theories viable? Is he capaple of pulling off a coup? and so on. I"ve also wanted to understand what exactly lead him to the conclusion a few decades ago that its the psyche itself that wants the world to suffer and so to suffer itself (Soul Violence); which means among other things that the soul itself--or psyche, if you like--has constellated climate change and the melting of the the polar ice caps, etc. This is what the soul wants now, says WG. I mean sheesh, that's an incredibly startling thing to reckon with, if you're accustomed to a Hillmanian approach (recall Hillman's fascination w/ Polar Bears and people who dream about them? Gosh, I can't help but wonder what must think of all this). Not to sound too terribly naive, but I guess the truth is that he--Wolfgang G.--he really upsets me.

                  Anyway, more on all this later. It's great talking w/ you!

                  God bless our tinfoil hearts.

                  by aitchdee on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:14:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that today, too many people (18+ / 0-)

        On both sides think that "truth" and "fact" mean the same thing. They don't. The Bible contains many truths. Whether it is factually true from cover to cover is irrelevant. Science deals with facts, what we can know today. Is that always necessarily "true"? Nope. Our understanding evolves. Sometimes, we realize a way of analyzing something was off, and we make adjustments. And technology improves, so what we thought was "true" with our tools 50 years ago, we realize just scratched the surface. Our facts have changed.

        When a person of faith tells me that the Bible is factually accurate, when a science-based thinker scoffs at faith because the Bible is not a factually accurate history,  they're both missing the point.

        Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate either. But most historians concede that if we read or watch them, we learn the truth of the era.

        Neither truth nor facts are  intrinsically superior. If I have cancer, I want a doctor who knows the facts. If I just lost a loved one to cancer, I want Truth: not a superhero that will swoop in and make everything better, but wisdom about the human condition. Mythos.

        It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... - C Dickens.

        by grover on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:35:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site