God, The EVIDENCE
JungLdy
named Patrick Glynn. Thank God I bought the book before I read of this man's
credentials as he seems alittle more' right wing' than I am. But, nonetheless
I decided to give his views a go...
The book is a fascinating account of how science has tried to become a religion
inandof itself. How Darwin actually stated that was the goal of his thinking
at one point. How Jung actually made the following statement in 1932:
'Among all my patients in the second half of my life, thre has not been one
whose problems in the the lsat resort was not that of a finding a religious
outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he
had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their
followers and none of them has really healed who did not regain his religious
outlook.'
The author credits Jung in part for being a forefather of Alcoholics Annoymous
and the foundation of belief in a 'higher power' for healing.
The author, a self proclaimed former ATHIEST, boldly states that 'there is no
good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or
agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
And further he writes about science ' Indeed what the 20th century cosmology
had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a universe with a
definite beginning, expressely designed for life. Ironically, the picture of
the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced 20th century science is
closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything
offered by science since Copernicus.'
Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel its
worthwhile.
Denise
'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter Starcke
The_Sage
>I'm reading a book with the aforementioned as the title. The book is by a man
>named Patrick Glynn. Thank God I bought the book before I read of this man's
>credentials as he seems alittle more' right wing' than I am. But, nonetheless
>I decided to give his views a go...
>The book is a fascinating account of how science has tried to become a religion
>inandof itself. How Darwin actually stated that was the goal of his thinking
>at one point. How Jung actually made the following statement in 1932:
>'Among all my patients in the second half of my life, thre has not been one
>whose problems in the the lsat resort was not that of a finding a religious
>outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he
>had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their
>followers and none of them has really healed who did not regain his religious
>outlook.'
Yes, I remember that quote. Of course what Jung was actually referring
to when he talked about religion was "an attitude of mind, a careful
consideration and observation in relation to certain
'powers'...indeed, and attitude toward whatever impressed a person
sufficiently so that he is move to...reverence and love (Andrew
Samuels, A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, pg 130). My
spiritual side is very well developed and that is why I have no
unintegrated and therefore unconscious projections of a make-believe
God in my universe.
>The author credits Jung in part for being a forefather of Alcoholics Annoymous
>and the foundation of belief in a 'higher power' for healing.
Poor Jung, they blame him for alot of things he never said nor did.
>The author, a self proclaimed former ATHIEST, boldly states that 'there is no
>good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or
>agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
Atheism is not the illusion, God is the illusion. Isn't it obvious?
>And further he writes about science ' Indeed what the 20th century cosmology
>had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a universe with a
>definite beginning, expressely designed for life. Ironically, the picture of
>the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced 20th century science is
>closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything
>offered by science since Copernicus.'
This author doesn't know what science is all about. Darwin is not a
spokesmans for all of science, so his agenda is irrelvant to science.
The universe does not have a definite beginning and was not expressely
designed for life. The Big Bang Bubble which exists withing the
universe had a beginning and life wasn't designed, it was developed.
>Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel its
>worthwhile.
You believe it so naturally it will feel good. Have you ever thought
of entertaining thoughts that don't make you feel good?
>'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter Starcke
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God...' Dictionary
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
My Home Newsgroup : not yet determined
"A camel is a horse designed by a committee" -- Anonymous
=============================================================
nous...@my-deja.com
jun...@aol.com (JungLdy) wrote:
> I'm reading a book with the aforementioned as the title. The book is
by a man
> named Patrick Glynn. Thank God I bought the book before I read of
this man's
> credentials as he seems alittle more' right wing' than I am. But,
nonetheless
> I decided to give his views a go...
>
> The book is a fascinating account of how science has tried to become a
religion
> inandof itself. How Darwin actually stated that was the goal of his
thinking
> at one point. How Jung actually made the following statement in 1932:
>
> 'Among all my patients in the second half of my life, thre has not
been one
> whose problems in the the lsat resort was not that of a finding a
religious
> outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill
because he
> had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their
> followers and none of them has really healed who did not regain his
religious
> outlook.'
>
Annoymous
> and the foundation of belief in a 'higher power' for healing.
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
Did Jung actually become active or is this just showing
some connection to the AAA?
But Jung being a student of Fried might make Jung
think about it, though I am not sure that it was true.
I think not only did Fried start to give his patients
and family coke and people started passing on,
He hit on females, etc. I think
Fried also met with the guy who wrote the Sherlock
Holmes , hmmm,...
Don't know..
Rey
> The author, a self proclaimed former ATHIEST, boldly states that
'there is no
> good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of
atheism or
> agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
>
> And further he writes about science ' Indeed what the 20th century
cosmology
> had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a
universe with a
> definite beginning, expressely designed for life. Ironically, the
picture of
> the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced 20th century
science is
> closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than
anything
> offered by science since Copernicus.'
>
> Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel
its
> worthwhile.
>
> Denise
>
> 'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter
Starcke
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
Personally I feel that
the argument about theism and atheism
should not be centered around "evolutionism" vs.
"creationism". evolutionism in my mind does not
preclude the existence of a creator.
Also, that is a "complex question". This argument
fails to deliver alternate considerations. Leaving
the two rival camps with the logical fallacy of
begging each premiss.
In my opinion, "all bets are off" because as
parts to a whole we simply cannot know all things nor
understand all things. Sometimes it is more dangerous
to have few facts and make hasty conclusions based
upon facts. What if "God" actually had the power
to create things from nothing" It is possible.
If so, then he could do a hundred things at the same
time and each would contradict the other from a
finite point of view.
Rey >
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Sharyn C
JungLdy wrote in message <19990530160723...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
(snipped much good stuff just to comment on this)
>The author credits Jung in part for being a forefather of Alcoholics
Annoymous
>and the foundation of belief in a 'higher power' for healing.
>
Yes Denise, it's well documented that Jung corresponded with Bill Wilson (is
that the right name), the founder of AA when he was creating it. I believe
he wrote an autobiography that cites this. The idea that he got from Jung
was that the energy used in an addiction could only be channeled in another
direction if there was something of an equal power of attraction. Jung
believed that only a spiritual devotion to, or belief in, a power greater
than the individual held that kind of power. That's why AA's principles and
practices can be applied through any spiritual belief system.
Sharyn
nous...@my-deja.com
Can anyone tell me when the existence of an atom
became a fact?
dennis...@my-deja.com
nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
> From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
> Can anyone tell me when the existence of an atom
> became a fact?
>
> Rey
Rey, I can't answer that; but I did see something on tv a few years
ago -- a picture taken with the latest electron microscope technology,
which showed ... now I can't remember exactly ... I believe it was a
single molecule of gold, where the individual atoms were clearly
visible. The picture was presented as the first _visible_ proof /
evidence that atoms are not just an abstract, theoretical model of
matter.
Dennis
nous...@my-deja.com
nous...@my-deja.com
I refrained from asking this question for a few weeks
in the hopes it might be addressed.
Is there such an archetype? Is it some attribute
of a combination of archetypes?
It is in animals regarding their young
Good advice, don't get between a baby bear
and the mother...
in humans
regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..
Polymatt
>Thank God I bought the book before I read of this man's
>credentials
From what you wrote he sounds like Eric von Daniken. Brilliant man, completely
mad of course. Biased to the very last but able to display his evidence
convincingly......
>'there is no
>good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or
>agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
We've been debating that point in a lot of other threads. How anyone could say
that I do not know though I won't go as far as to say that God is the illusion.
Reality maybe....
>' Indeed what the 20th century cosmology
>had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a universe with
>a
>definite beginning, expressely designed for life.
I've heard something to that effect many times before. Complete tosh. Hawking's
work over the past few decades confirms that ( Sage can correct me here - I
think it was the 'no boundaries theory'??? ). I think the basic argument that
the author is putting across goes something like;
The Universe is so perfectly adapted to support life that it must have been
intelligently designed ( teleological argument ) for that specific purposes.
Garbage, complete and utter. The correct statement ( at least until we can
prove otherwise ) is that life is perfectly suited to the Universe. Obvious
really if you have faith in evolution. This is an example where Occam's Razor
comes in to play.
>Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel its
>worthwhile.
>
I felt the same about Von Daniken. Sounds like a good read, amusing at least.
No offense intended Denise, it's just that my scientist side craves to tear his
arguments to shreads. I do the same to Von Daniken now.
>'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter Starcke
>
Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I am God.
Interesting...we're all God hey. Well if God is the product of faith purely and
simply, I guess that kinda works. If He's a 'real' being, then I'm afraid Mr.
Starcke needs a wee bit more training in thinking rational thoughts.....
Thanks, I'll try and acquire a copy,
Matt
The_Sage
>>'there is no
>>good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or
>>agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
>We've been debating that point in a lot of other threads. How anyone could say
>that I do not know though I won't go as far as to say that God is the illusion.
>Reality maybe....
Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
here on His/Her/Its behalf? As Joseph Campbell said, "Like dreams,
myths are productions of the human imagination. Their images,
consequently, though derived from the material world and its supposed
history, are, like dreams, revelations of the deepest hopes, desires
and fears, potentialities and conflicts, of the human will...Every
myth, that is to say, whether or not by intention, is PSYCHOLOGICALLY
symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not
literally, but as metaphors...Rituals are direct expositions of their
life-sustaining patterns. Temples and the narratives of myth are
hermetic fields within which those apparitions known as gods and
goddesses, demons, angels, demigods, incarnations, and the like,
typify in the guise of charismatic personalities the locally
recognized vortices of consciousness out of which all the local
theater of life derive their being. The figurations of myth are
expressive, therefore, as those of dreams normally are not, of a range
of universal, as distinguished from specifically individual,
concerns...The distinguishing first function of a properly read
mythology is to release the mind from its naive fixation upon such
false ideas, which are of material things as things-in-themselves.
Hence, the figurations of myth are metaphorical (as dreams normally
are not) in two senses simultaneously, as bearing (1) PSYCHLOGICAL,
but at the same time (2) METAPHYSICAL, connotations...the term and
concept 'God' is itself but a metaphor of the unknowing mind,
connotative, not only beyond itself, but beyond thought. So all that
can be said of it, whether as touching time or eternity, has to be in
the way of an 'as if'..." (Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer
Space ,pgs 55-57).
>>' Indeed what the 20th century cosmology
>>had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a universe with
>>a definite beginning, expressely designed for life.
>I've heard something to that effect many times before. Complete tosh. Hawking's
>work over the past few decades confirms that ( Sage can correct me here - I
>think it was the 'no boundaries theory'??? ). I think the basic argument that
>the author is putting across goes something like;
LOL! Thanks for trying to include me on this one!
>The Universe is so perfectly adapted to support life that it must have been
>intelligently designed ( teleological argument ) for that specific purposes.
>Garbage, complete and utter. The correct statement ( at least until we can
>prove otherwise ) is that life is perfectly suited to the Universe.
Exactly. Evolution proves that life specifically evolves to its
environment and never the other way around.
>Obvious
>really if you have faith in evolution. This is an example where Occam's Razor
>comes in to play.
Not exactly.
>>Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel its
>>worthwhile.
>I felt the same about Von Daniken. Sounds like a good read, amusing at least.
>No offense intended Denise, it's just that my scientist side craves to tear his
>arguments to shreads. I do the same to Von Daniken now.
I share your sentiments.
>>'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter Starcke
>Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I am God.
LOL! I wish I would have thought of that one!
>Interesting...we're all God hey. Well if God is the product of faith purely and
>simply, I guess that kinda works. If He's a 'real' being, then I'm afraid Mr.
>Starcke needs a wee bit more training in thinking rational thoughts.....
This gives new meaning to the phrase, "In God we trust", ie -- I only
trust myself and no one else. It also gives new meaning to the
commandment that "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before thee",
which means we all have an excuse to go out and kill any of the other
seven billion Gods out there that shouldn't be before me.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
My Home Newsgroup : not yet determined
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
JungLdy
Don't laugh too hard. If you read the bible and are open to the subjective
interpretation of it and not the literal/objective interpretation THAT is
EXACTLY what Jesus says about himself, yourself and myself...
Try John 17:21-23 on for size.
And, if you can grasp this grain o' truth than you are not as unbelieving as
you think you are.
Denise
nous...@my-deja.com
I may be "God" but not the GodHead, nor the actual
Christ.
I would be a "false prophet" or an "imposter".
Or at least I hope not that I was
the GODHEAD. I'd hate to
see the universe(s) reflect my every
detail of every thought or whim of my "Presence." I
would have to tie existence into a moebius strip so
that it would have no begining and end, because I
couldn't figure anything any better. I would also
have to cut off my emanation so that it would not
destroy the sinners in general. I would try to be
more specific. So dualism would be the way to go and
dish out my judgement. I would also have to demand
that all things of this world would shout out MY NAME,
not anyone elses unless I wanted help.
I'd force the superpowers to have summits where they
would have to pronounce my name even if they didn't
know what was going on.
As a matter of fact, because I would have so much
"mind control" power I'd design cause and effect so
that my emanations would not hurt people so I'd
figure out a way to have the same things at the same
time come into this world without forcing everyone
to be just like it. Otherwise this world, which is
not my kingdom because it would have to be transormed
to meet my blessings would be smashed to smitthereens.
And if I feel like that I wonder how many would actually
act that out if they had the power? Hmmm, hope they
didn't get into politics....
Nor would I
really want to worship a piece of flesh no matter
who any of you are. Don't take that the wrong way,
but ...
I feel its (John 17) more like Plato's statement to ION
where part of the magnetic chain from God through
the orator through "ultimately"
the "audience".
As an advocate of existence the King of Kings swooped
us "up and into" the Father.
What IS inside of us IS greater than that which is
in the world.
"RE" (again)
In article <19990531220502...@ng25.aol.com>,
nous...@my-deja.com
Hope nobody takes offense, but I won't worship a
piece of flesh.
Here is my take about that Jesus job statement.
more like Plato's explanation to ION
that there is a magnetic flow from God, through
the "orator" and finally to "us" (audience).
We are not in ourselves the Godhead. We are
sanctified through Christ to be part of the Father,
who is Holy.
Jesus, being the advocate of y(our) existence puts
into us this "sanctification."
So God being inside of us makes what is inside of us greater
than that which is in the world.
Besides, if I don't know how to be a good God,
I am sure others would be just as confused what
to do. Though I am sure the angels and those in the know
would provide consul.
But just in case, I might tie all the universes
together into a nice neat moebius strip, so the
the end could meet the begining.
I'd worry that my "Presence" which is reflected from
all creation and because all things would point to
me so I would "come in secret." I'd also have to
demand a dualism so that the similartities would
not force everything into a reduction of automation (what
makes people and things tick would be known to each iota)
so synchronicity
would be a good way to accomplish both jobs at the
same time. It would cloak as well as serve.
Then because everyone would have to shout my name
even if they don't know what they are doing, I'd
have more than one purpose. One is that my will
be done. I'd have the superpowers come together
shouting my name into summit meetings for peace.
That will cool them off. But they wouldn't know
how I did it. Because "everything" in comparison
to "something" would run rings around our time-place.
Then my personal life could go on with little
notice. Unless of course these institutions
put two and two together than they'd watch every
embarrassing moment and send back messages to
their respective authorities. Especially because their concept
of how I should act would differ in many ways and work in other
ways confirming their suspicions.
I'd have to devise a way to live out my life so
that it would not create a new calendar or have
another God to worship because One Chirst is good
enough. Otherwise it would confuse everyone else,
as well as me, and if I were confused, ...
Let me see, what else,... hmmm, don't want to reveal
to much,... BUT if others were like me, I'd hate
to see them get into politics. Too narrow for such
broad a job...
dennis...@my-deja.com
I just want to add my two cents, then shut up, because I have no
interest in a long debate with the 'hair-splitter.'
In article <3753331b...@news.psn.net>,
x...@psn.net wrote:
> Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
> here on His/Her/Its behalf? As Joseph Campbell said,
>"Like dreams, myths are productions of the human imagination.
[snip part of quote]
> Hence, the figurations of myth are metaphorical (as dreams normally
> are not) in two senses simultaneously, as bearing (1) PSYCHLOGICAL,
> but at the same time (2) METAPHYSICAL, connotations...the term and
> concept 'God' is itself but a metaphor of the unknowing mind,
> connotative, not only beyond itself, but beyond thought. So all that
> can be said of it, whether as touching time or eternity, has to be in
> the way of an 'as if'..." (Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer
> Space ,pgs 55-57).
Sage, as always, takes the 'metaphorical' nature of mythology to be a
proof of the metaphysical non-existence of the myth's contents. He mis-
reads what Campbell is saying buy concentrating on (1) above, and
ignoring (2). Campbell is pointing out that in myth, we are dealing
(at least in part) with things which are "beyond" the mind and beyond
thought. So in order to deal with what myth points to we must use
symbolic language, which always has an "as if" behind it. The "as if"
allows us to grasp, in our limited fashion, what is ultimately beyond
comprehension in human terms, or is more easily grasped through the
power of symbol, which appeals to more than ego consciousness.
Campbell is saying we should be aware of this psychological dynamic,
and thus avoid the traps of interpreting things with a literalistic
mindset. But to say that when metaphor is used, what the metaphor
refers to _therefore_ doesn't exist, is to misunderstand what a
metaphor is. If I say "The sun was a big red globe, sinking into the
sea" -- that is a metaphoric description, an "as if." The fact that
the sun is not actually a "globe," and doesn't sink into the sea, says
nothing about whether the sun actually exists or not (despite the fact
that the statement's structure assumes its existence.)
When myth refers to God, however, it refers to something which
_cannot_ be observed objectively the way the sun can. The metaphoric
reference assumes, just as the statement about the sun assumes, the
sentence's subject is a reality. But the same rule about the
metaphoric nature of the description still applies. The fact that we
can _only_ speak with "as if"s about God, says nothing, in itself,
about the ultimate existence of God. It only means that in dealing
with this thing, we have no non-metaphoric, objective way to describe
it.
As Campbell says above, all that can be said of God "has to be in
the way of an 'as if.'" Campbell does not say, or imply, anything
about the objective, metaphysical reality which the metaphors we use
point to.
Dennis
Polymatt
Sorry if what I typed seemed rude; it was not intended like that.
I shall refer to that part of the Bible. I am simply uncertain as to when we
should be subjective, and when objective. I fear that subjectivity is all to
often made acceptable when the literal meaning is uncomfortable or disagreeable
to human beings. Of course objectivity acts equally adequately as shield to the
hurtful 'truth' of things.
'Being' is a complicated task on the whole, is it not? I hoped that studying
psychology would make that event called life a little easier. Wrong again.
Warmest regards,
Matt
Polymatt
Thank you. You really brought a smile to my face. It felt good to be a
scientist again, even if only as a 'fix'.
>Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
>here on His/Her/Its behalf?
Good point. Although I 'believe' in synchronicity from what I understand of it,
I cannot take synchronicity alone as evidence of a higher power giving us a
prod in the right direction. As for reality, I'm not quite sure of what it
consists of yet. I should refrain from using the term on that basis.
>( Sage can correct me here - I
>>think it was the 'no boundaries theory'??? ). I think the basic argument
>that
>>the author is putting across goes something like;
>
>LOL! Thanks for trying to include me on this one!
You are a greater authority than I! :-)
>>Obvious
>>really if you have faith in evolution. This is an example where Occam's
>Razor
>>comes in to play.
>
>Not exactly.
>
I think I understand why I was off, but not entirely. Please go on.........
>>I felt the same about Von Daniken. Sounds like a good read, amusing at
>least.
>>No offense intended Denise, it's just that my scientist side craves to tear
>his
>>arguments to shreads. I do the same to Von Daniken now.
>
>I share your sentiments.
Is that a shared sentiment towards trashing Von Daniken / Starcke / the
authors views or just generic scientific deconstructiveness? I'm sure it's a
bit of all four.
>>Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I am God.
>
>LOL! I wish I would have thought of that one!
Would you feel happier if I told you that you inspired me?
> It also gives new meaning to the
>commandment that "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before thee",
>which means we all have an excuse to go out and kill any of the other
>seven billion Gods out there that shouldn't be before me.
I think religious fanatics have been doing that for a long while. Admitedly
they didn't have as good an excuse but hey, it never stopped them.
Matt ;-)
Lane McCullough
Actually here is how Jung was credited with an involvement with AA. I think
this is in the AA big book but I found it in a different source.
In the early 1930's Jung was working with a wealthy American client named
Rowland Hazard. He soon declared that he was a hopeless alchoholic and that
he could do nothing for him. He explained to Hazard that his only hope was
for him to have a vital spiritual experience. He refferred him to a group
that he knew of called the Oxford Group (a support group which was the
precursor to AA). Hazard did have that vital spiritual experience and got
sober. Later he intervened in the case of Bill Wilson who also got sober in
a similar way. Wilson went on to start A/A. Bill Wilson did correspond
with Jung but as far as I know it was only one transaction. He want to let
Jung know about his indirect influence on AA and thank him. Jung wrote Bill
Wilson back and conversed some about Rowland Hazard and alcoholism in
general.
Do an internet search under Alcoholics Anonymous, Jung, Oxford Group, and
you will find references and the actual letters of correspondence.
Lane
nous...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7it9ns$ugs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <19990530160723...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> jun...@aol.com (JungLdy) wrote:
>> I'm reading a book with the aforementioned as the title. The book is
>by a man
>> named Patrick Glynn. Thank God I bought the book before I read of
>this man's
>> credentials as he seems alittle more' right wing' than I am. But,
>nonetheless
>> I decided to give his views a go...
>>
>> The book is a fascinating account of how science has tried to become a
>religion
>> inandof itself. How Darwin actually stated that was the goal of his
>thinking
>> at one point. How Jung actually made the following statement in 1932:
>>
>> 'Among all my patients in the second half of my life, thre has not
>been one
>> whose problems in the the lsat resort was not that of a finding a
>religious
>> outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill
>because he
>> had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their
>> followers and none of them has really healed who did not regain his
>religious
>> outlook.'
>>
>> The author credits Jung in part for being a forefather of Alcoholics
>Annoymous
>> and the foundation of belief in a 'higher power' for healing.
>
>From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
>Did Jung actually become active or is this just showing
>some connection to the AAA?
>
>But Jung being a student of Fried might make Jung
>think about it, though I am not sure that it was true.
>I think not only did Fried start to give his patients
>and family coke and people started passing on,
>He hit on females, etc. I think
>Fried also met with the guy who wrote the Sherlock
>Holmes , hmmm,...
>
>Don't know..
>
>Rey
>
>> The author, a self proclaimed former ATHIEST, boldly states that
>'there is no
>> good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of
>atheism or
>> agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I have made.'
>>
>> And further he writes about science ' Indeed what the 20th century
>cosmology
>> had come up with was something of a scientific embarrassment: a
>universe with a
>> definite beginning, expressely designed for life. Ironically, the
>picture of
>> the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced 20th century
>science is
>> closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than
>anything
>> offered by science since Copernicus.'
>>
>> Its a good book so far...of course it echoes what I believe so I feel
>its
>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Denise
>>
>> 'An atheist is someone who does not believe in themselves...' Walter
>Starcke
>
>
>From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
>Personally I feel that
>the argument about theism and atheism
>should not be centered around "evolutionism" vs.
>"creationism". evolutionism in my mind does not
>preclude the existence of a creator.
>
>Also, that is a "complex question". This argument
>fails to deliver alternate considerations. Leaving
>the two rival camps with the logical fallacy of
>begging each premiss.
>
>In my opinion, "all bets are off" because as
>parts to a whole we simply cannot know all things nor
>understand all things. Sometimes it is more dangerous
>to have few facts and make hasty conclusions based
>upon facts. What if "God" actually had the power
>to create things from nothing" It is possible.
>
>If so, then he could do a hundred things at the same
>time and each would contradict the other from a
>finite point of view.
>
>Rey >
>
>
JungLdy
rarely offended at anyone especially here...its happened but very rarely.
Dan, I'm responding to your duality questions here as well....
I believe that the either/or mindset we find ourselves locked into over this
very topic is actual evidence of the author's claims.
Its either science OR its God. Its either black or white. Its good or bad.
Yada, yada, yada...
In 'The Gospel According to Thomas' Thomas quoted Jesus as saying 'When you
make the two one and when you make the inside the outside and the above and
below and you make the male and female one and the same then you enter the
kingdom of heaven.'
Did Jesus actually literally mean making ONE or was he speaking of a subjective
understanding of the duality and the recognition of both being the same and yet
different? Surely Jesus did not mean the sky and ground coming together, or
men and women become the same sex, or your insides of your body becoming your
outsides and vice versa...
Rather, I think what was meant is the duality of both being reconciled and
accepted for their difference and their sameness. Does not Carl Jung focus on
this duality as well?
That becoming whole must mean the alignment and recognition of shadow and self?
That the oneness of your masculine and feminine equate self?
I believe dualities like these are what the author means on a very basic level.
On another, its the idea that war can be both bad and good. That 'killing by
religious people' can be both evil and 'holy', that life and death are actually
the same...that all are subjective and objective according to one's perception.
Matt...I have a VERY difficult time with war, killing, hate, discrimination or
any type of pain leveled in the name of God. I don't see anywhere where God
sanctioned these events...or Jesus for that matter. Quite the contrary...'Love
thy neighbor as thyself.'
My view is more inline with what I believe Jesus really said and what Dave
Grant said in ''The Great Lover's Manifesto"
'Our relationship with each other on the horizontal is similiar to that with
God on the vertical.' If anyone says he loves God but hates his brother he's a
liar.'
Page after page of the Scriptures are filled with loving, redemptive,
nonjudging, accepting thoughts and words. But for some reason the words which
do the opposite are the one's many churches and religions built their
foundations on after committee meetings, goverment pressure and cultural
bias...
Denise
The_Sage
>>>Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I am God.>>
>Don't laugh too hard. If you read the bible and are open to the subjective
>interpretation of it and not the literal/objective interpretation THAT is
>EXACTLY what Jesus says about himself, yourself and myself...
>Try John 17:21-23 on for size.
>And, if you can grasp this grain o' truth than you are not as unbelieving as
>you think you are.
You can't take bits and pieces of the Bible and make them the whole of
the Bible. Jesus never claimed to be God, he only claimed to be his
son, so Jesus wasn't refering to becoming Gods, but becoming a part of
Jesus' family as an adopted son of father God.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
My Home Newsgroup : not yet determined
"Don't forget that everybody, including yourself, has only
his own experience to think with" -- Rudolf Flesch
=============================================================
The_Sage
>Sage,
>Thank you. You really brought a smile to my face. It felt good to be a
>scientist again, even if only as a 'fix'.
You are so funny! If you keep that up, we can never be enemies!
>>Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
>>here on His/Her/Its behalf?
>Good point. Although I 'believe' in synchronicity from what I understand of it,
>I cannot take synchronicity alone as evidence of a higher power giving us a
>prod in the right direction. As for reality, I'm not quite sure of what it
>consists of yet. I should refrain from using the term on that basis.
I take it you missed out on the "What is reality" thread a few months
back? Would you like to discuss this? This is one of my favorite
things to discuss and I am always looking for new ideas and new angles
on knowing reality.
>>>( Sage can correct me here - I
>>>think it was the 'no boundaries theory'??? ). I think the basic argument
>>>that the author is putting across goes something like;
>>LOL! Thanks for trying to include me on this one!
>You are a greater authority than I! :-)
Flattery will get you somewhere.
>>>Obvious really if you have faith in evolution. This is an example where Occam's
>>>Razor comes in to play.
>>Not exactly.
>I think I understand why I was off, but not entirely. Please go on.........
Well it could be a whole 'nother thread so I was reluctant to discuss
it. Read my two short articles on this at the following URLs:
http://www.psn.net/~xyz/Physics5.htm
http://www.psn.net/~xyz/Physics6.htm
Tell me what you think about it.
>>>I felt the same about Von Daniken. Sounds like a good read, amusing at
>>>least. No offense intended Denise, it's just that my scientist side
>>>craves to tear his arguments to shreads. I do the same to Von Daniken
>>>now.
>>I share your sentiments.
>Is that a shared sentiment towards trashing Von Daniken / Starcke / the
>authors views or just generic scientific deconstructiveness? I'm sure it's a
>bit of all four.
I can't just sit idley by while someone spews forth a bunch of make
believe nonsense. But I don't consider that deconstructive, I consider
it constructive because trashing Von Daniken et al doesn't kill ideas,
it actuallys helps logical and objective ideas to grow and it does
that by killing off make believe fantasies, allowing science more room
to breath.
>>>Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I am God.
>>LOL! I wish I would have thought of that one!
>Would you feel happier if I told you that you inspired me?
You are too kind for words!
>> It also gives new meaning to the
>>commandment that "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before thee",
>>which means we all have an excuse to go out and kill any of the other
>>seven billion Gods out there that shouldn't be before me.
>I think religious fanatics have been doing that for a long while. Admitedly
>they didn't have as good an excuse but hey, it never stopped them.
>Matt ;-)
What do you think could stop them?
The_Sage
>Matt, I found nothing insulting about your response. No offense taken. I am
>rarely offended at anyone especially here...its happened but very rarely.
Are you talking about me behind my back? That's OK.
>Dan, I'm responding to your duality questions here as well....
>I believe that the either/or mindset we find ourselves locked into over this
>very topic is actual evidence of the author's claims.
>Its either science OR its God. Its either black or white. Its good or bad.
>Yada, yada, yada...
I believe that this is the logical fallacy of having to make a choice
when there really is none to make. Its Pascal's Wager all over again.
>In 'The Gospel According to Thomas' Thomas quoted Jesus as saying 'When you
>make the two one and when you make the inside the outside and the above and
>below and you make the male and female one and the same then you enter the
>kingdom of heaven.'
>Did Jesus actually literally mean making ONE or was he speaking of a subjective
>understanding of the duality and the recognition of both being the same and yet
>different? Surely Jesus did not mean the sky and ground coming together, or
>men and women become the same sex, or your insides of your body becoming your
>outsides and vice versa...
>Rather, I think what was meant is the duality of both being reconciled and
>accepted for their difference and their sameness. Does not Carl Jung focus on
>this duality as well?
>That becoming whole must mean the alignment and recognition of shadow and self?
>That the oneness of your masculine and feminine equate self?
No, the masculine and feminine are eliminated for something else. Let
me illustrate this with a perfectly applicable analogy: A common coin.
One side of the coin has the "heads", the other side the "tails". Now
maybe all we normally see is heads or tails but they are only flip
sides of a higher object, the single coin. Likewise, when I look at
you I see tails and when you look at me you see heads (HAHAHA...I
HEARD THAT COMMENT!!!) but in reality we are only seeing one side of
something else that is neither male nor female and NO! it isn't
androgynous either. It is something we have no name for yet but it is
the "coin" upon which we can view our predefined and formally cultured
masculinity or femininity.
>I believe dualities like these are what the author means on a very basic level.
> On another, its the idea that war can be both bad and good. That 'killing by
>religious people' can be both evil and 'holy', that life and death are actually
>the same...that all are subjective and objective according to one's perception.
There is no duality for those who are integrated. The only reason
there is a duality to begin with is not because the world is a duality
but because our projections are perceived for what they are --
duality!
>Matt...I have a VERY difficult time with war, killing, hate, discrimination or
>any type of pain leveled in the name of God. I don't see anywhere where God
>sanctioned these events...or Jesus for that matter. Quite the contrary...'Love
>thy neighbor as thyself.'
>My view is more inline with what I believe Jesus really said and what Dave
>Grant said in ''The Great Lover's Manifesto"
>'Our relationship with each other on the horizontal is similiar to that with
>God on the vertical.' If anyone says he loves God but hates his brother he's a
>liar.'
>Page after page of the Scriptures are filled with loving, redemptive,
>nonjudging, accepting thoughts and words. But for some reason the words which
>do the opposite are the one's many churches and religions built their
>foundations on after committee meetings, goverment pressure and cultural
>bias...
Very good observation. There is a reason why the idealistic words of
the Bible cannot be applied and lead to the opposite behaviors of what
the Bible intends, do you know what it is?
nous...@my-deja.com
Forgive me for constantly trying to discuss what I
perceive as issues surrounding synchronicity.
From my point of view, I see the idea of the body
and mind are "subject to" the heart and soul. This
for me means a "propensity" or a "tendency" to
be in a "position" to see or not see the "synchronicity"
of an event.
This would mean that for me that if the "heart" and
"soul" are not in accord with that harmony, they simply
won't consciously witness for themselves that part
of the happening.
Hope this makes sense, I am still trying to work
on better wording....
Rey
John DiFool
JungLdy wrote:
>
>
> In 'The Gospel According to Thomas' Thomas quoted Jesus as saying 'When you
> make the two one and when you make the inside the outside and the above and
> below and you make the male and female one and the same then you enter the
> kingdom of heaven.'
>
> Did Jesus actually literally mean making ONE or was he speaking of a subjective
> understanding of the duality and the recognition of both being the same and yet
> different? Surely Jesus did not mean the sky and ground coming together, or
> men and women become the same sex, or your insides of your body becoming your
> outsides and vice versa...
The road to total enlightenment entails the dissolution of
boundaries/dualities,
for in Unity Consciousness there is no separation between self & other. That is
what He is alluding to here.
Many people put words into Yeshua's mouth that he almost certainly didn't say,
but
sometimes the things he probably did say sneak out. ;-)
John DiFool
Polymatt
>
>You are so funny! If you keep that up, we can never be enemies!
Enemies!?! Sage, neither enemies nor allies are we. Shall we say our paths
cross from time to time, when you're being open-minded and I'm being rational?
>I take it you missed out on the "What is reality" thread a few months
>back? Would you like to discuss this? This is one of my favorite
>things to discuss and I am always looking for new ideas and new angles
>on knowing reality.
Absolutely. Metaphyics, physics, cosmology and ontology are among my favourite
topics. With a psychological angle of course......
>Flattery will get you somewhere.
I know.
>
>Well it could be a whole 'nother thread so I was reluctant to discuss
>it. Read my two short articles on this at the following URLs:
That I shall. I visited your homepage once before. Most ...... prevokative. I
disagree with your attitudes towards paranormal phenomena, but that's not to
say I'm completely at odds with you.
>I can't just sit idley by while someone spews forth a bunch of make
>believe nonsense.
I know the feeling.
>But I don't consider that deconstructive,
Fair point. Bad choice of words.
> I consider
>it constructive because trashing Von Daniken et al doesn't kill ideas,
>it actuallys helps logical and objective ideas to grow and it does
>that by killing off make believe fantasies, allowing science more room
>to breath.
Sage, are you saying Von Daniken wasn't a logical and objective man !?!? Well,
.......
>>I think religious fanatics have been doing that for a long while. Admitedly
>>they didn't have as good an excuse but hey, it never stopped them.
>
>>Matt ;-)
>
>What do you think could stop them?
Not a clue. The might of God perhaps.....
Where are you picking these quotes from? I think I shall have to commit to this
tradition also, though my selection of great works is still in the early stages
of development.
Matt
Polymatt
Forgot to comment on this,
>>You are so funny!
I hope that wasn't sarcasm!
Matt
Polymatt
>Matt, I found nothing insulting about your response. No offense taken.
I'm glad. I respect you and would not wish to alienate myself from you.> I am
>rarely offended at anyone especially here...its happened but very rarely.
I too take little offense from anything, only unconstructive condemnation of my
beliefs and theories, especially by someone not apt to judge. The fact that
this does not happen here is why I feel I can be open with you all.
>Rather, I think what was meant is the duality of both being reconciled and
>accepted for their difference and their sameness. Does not Carl Jung focus
>on
>this duality as well?
>
Indeed, not only Jung but almost all major and minor ancient faiths, most
notably those from the East. Take Buddhism, or better yet Taoism. The yin and
the yang. That is the reason I believe the idea of resolution of fractions of
the psyche into a whole through individuation is such a fundamental concept. It
is also the primary reason I consider myself a Jungian.
>That becoming whole must mean the alignment and recognition of shadow and
>self?
And the confrontation and integration of the anima / animus.
>Matt...I have a VERY difficult time with war, killing, hate, discrimination
>or
>any type of pain leveled in the name of God. I don't see anywhere where God
>sanctioned these events...or Jesus for that matter. Quite the
>contrary...'Love
>thy neighbor as thyself.'
I have no great love for those things either. Of course, when you become
entangled in politics, economics and border disputes, etc. it is difficult to
pull out and realise where things are headed. Once WWI had commenced, Kaiser
Willheim of Germany realised exactly what his actions entialed. The shock was
the reason for his eventual abdication.
As for God and war, I am not as certain. Although I cannot remember details, I
believe there is a point in the Torah at which the Jews are effectively given
permission to kill men, women and children of a particular group of peoples. I
apologise for being able to remember no details whatsoever, however I heard the
story sometime ago. I was watching a religious programme on which a noted
professor from Gotingen ( the o should be um-lauted ) University, Germany, was
commenting on the 'darker side of God'. All the Jews, Christians and Catholics
present, instead of posing a reasoned debates as such people so often fail to,
accused him of passing Nazi War Crime guilt onto the Jewish and Christian God,
even though he said that the God of the New Testament was not like the earlier
one. I was enraged I shouted as well as threw something at the TV. I could not
believe that such a pathetic excuse for a comeback would be used. Come to think
of it, I think he was making a reference to an attack on the ?Canaanites?.
Excuse the spelling, I am struggling with a memory block.
Actually I do have several references at hand which are worth checking. Try JER
13 : 14, and ROM 13 : 33. There is a site which deals with this matter, and I
feel it is worth visiting.
It goes on from there to various interesting links. I have not visited it in a
while, though perhaps Sage has been there more recently?
I shall research the matter further and see what I can dig up, but sufficied to
say that I am not so sure of the innocence of God in such matters. As for
Jesus, there could not be a more different man. He truly was compassionate and
forgiving. I must admit that several of his parables confused me. As a theist,
perhaps you could help. 'The parable of the Sower' MATTHEW 13, I believe. Also,
the one in which he makes reference to it being easy to fit a camel through the
eye of a needle than to get a rich man into the kingdom of Heaven. Sorry, its
name eludes me.
I would like to pursue this further, but can afford no more time at the moment.
Yours in anticipation,
Matt
nous...@my-deja.com
Matt, you are absolutely correct that synchronicity
by itself is not evidence of the Holy Spirit or "God".
The Devil also has the ability to "fool" and "trick" us.
The principaliti (archetypal frames) impose their "will"
upon our world of flesh and minds.
One would have to "discern" and "take it to the limit"
in order to see "a larger perspective" and hopefully this
is not fooling us. It could be a tale imposed by a fool.
That is why a "scientific approach" is better than a
closed and narrow mind. Usually most people are narrow
minded either decidely biased that the act of creation
does not involve "God" or that there is no act of creation
or act of synchronicity that points to a "God."
Because it is one of those things that cannot be duplicated
in a lab (a personal experience) because it is short
lived, people argue. Many claim that because they have
not experienced it or because one who has experienced
it cannot prove it is automatically a reason to
dismiss the process of scientific reason. These are
the type of people who are insane with biasness toward
a particular agenda.
But a true scientif investigation involves the realization
that ephemeral phenomenon could only be duplicated
in a lab in indefinite ways. It could not "bring back
the original event".
You will, I feel experience synchronicity. According
to experts on the matter, simply thinking about
synchronicity helps bring it into play. This is
not an absolute law. But there is something to that
agreement. There are a lot of writers on the subject.
Having said that, even if you have not yet "observed"
any synchronicity, you still have the ability to
theorize. Please do not confuse this with the
actual connection between "God" (or the "devil")
and synchronicity.
You sound like you have the ability for sound logic and
an ambition to seek truth. All I can offer in the
matter is opinion.
No matter what religious upbringing the "idea of God"
usually involves the discussion of "eternity" or
"everlasting life". Human generations generally accept
the notion that "we die" after a duration.
Now we have the idea that there is a "finite" wondering
if an "infinite" exists, or at least a "higher orderdness".
It is these "higher orderdnesses" that we might "catch
glimpses" or find evidence (if we are fortunate).
What are these "higher orderdnesses"? Well, there
are probably too many to note here. I usually am
content with so called "synchronicity" because for me,
personally, that is all I am able to deal with.
In that "state" it is true that I can be fooled by
a higher order even be fooled by the "dEVIL."
But from my perspective the devil is simply a
"principaliti" meaning it is like a "house" that
I accidently walked into and have to abide by "house
rules" set up by that "master of the house."
Because there are many houses it is sound logic to
realize that it does not have to be controled always
by the devil. So even if one were in a maze, one should
at least be able to theorize that there are "safe
houses". It is SOME of these "safe houses" logically
that have "house rules" that involve the best laws
of "God."
The only problem with the above explanation is that
if you take it "materialistically" to the point where
you force these "safe houses" to represent say a
church. Though I respect churches from different
religious denominators the logic should not think
of the material demiurges as the definitive
representation of the explanation. They are
indefinite signs that point to a "higher orderdness."
This is logical reasoning. It can be practiced separate
than empirical observation. But again, it is my opinion
and thus only a filter for a "world-view". But
if you seek an "eye of the tiger" this certainly is
one of those ingredients.
Rey
In article <19990601160136...@ng-fr1.aol.com>,
poly...@aol.com (Polymatt) wrote:
> Sage,
>
> Thank you. You really brought a smile to my face. It felt good to be a
> scientist again, even if only as a 'fix'.
>
> >Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
> >here on His/Her/Its behalf?
>
> Good point. Although I 'believe' in synchronicity from what I
understand of it,
> I cannot take synchronicity alone as evidence of a higher power giving
us a
> prod in the right direction. As for reality, I'm not quite sure of
what it
> consists of yet. I should refrain from using the term on that basis.
>
> >( Sage can correct me here - I
> >>think it was the 'no boundaries theory'??? ). I think the basic
argument
> >that
> >>the author is putting across goes something like;
> >
> >LOL! Thanks for trying to include me on this one!
>
> You are a greater authority than I! :-)
>
> >>Obvious
> >>really if you have faith in evolution. This is an example where
Occam's
> >Razor
> >>comes in to play.
> >
> >Not exactly.
> >
>
> I think I understand why I was off, but not entirely. Please go
on.........
>
> >>I felt the same about Von Daniken. Sounds like a good read, amusing
at
> >least.
> >>No offense intended Denise, it's just that my scientist side craves
to tear
> >his
> >>arguments to shreads. I do the same to Von Daniken now.
> >
> >I share your sentiments.
>
> Is that a shared sentiment towards trashing Von Daniken / Starcke /
the
> authors views or just generic scientific deconstructiveness? I'm sure
it's a
> bit of all four.
>
> >>Wow! I think that statement can be used to reach the conclusion; I
am God.
> >
> >LOL! I wish I would have thought of that one!
>
> Would you feel happier if I told you that you inspired me?
>
> > It also gives new meaning to the
> >commandment that "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before thee",
> >which means we all have an excuse to go out and kill any of the other
> >seven billion Gods out there that shouldn't be before me.
>
> I think religious fanatics have been doing that for a long while.
Admitedly
> they didn't have as good an excuse but hey, it never stopped them.
>
> Matt ;-)
>
nous...@my-deja.com
Lane:
Thanks. I honestly don't know nor did not know. I
was just putting in my "two cents". But if there is
that information, there might be other "credits" going
around for him and the AA?
But it does seem more like his character to be involved
the way you state it.
I wonder what "HAZARD" - "WILson" would have got if consulting with
Frued?
Rey
In article <7j1j3v$3of$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> >> 'Among all my patients in the second half of my life, thre has not
> >been one
The_Sage
>>I take it you missed out on the "What is reality" thread a few months
>>back? Would you like to discuss this? This is one of my favorite
>>things to discuss and I am always looking for new ideas and new angles
>>on knowing reality.
>Absolutely. Metaphyics, physics, cosmology and ontology are among my favourite
>topics. With a psychological angle of course......
How is metaphysics supposedly related to looking at reality?
>>Well it could be a whole 'nother thread so I was reluctant to discuss
>>it. Read my two short articles on this at the following URLs:
>That I shall. I visited your homepage once before. Most ...... prevokative. I
>disagree with your attitudes towards paranormal phenomena, but that's not to
>say I'm completely at odds with you.
Maybe we can discuss paranormal phenomena sometime too. I simply don't
understand how anyone in the world can believe in something for which
no one in the world can consistently demonstrate other than by random
accident.
>> I consider
>>it constructive because trashing Von Daniken et al doesn't kill ideas,
>>it actuallys helps logical and objective ideas to grow and it does
>>that by killing off make believe fantasies, allowing science more room
>>to breath.
>Sage, are you saying Von Daniken wasn't a logical and objective man !?!? Well,
Logical? Yes. Objective? Never.
>>>I think religious fanatics have been doing that for a long while. Admitedly
>>>they didn't have as good an excuse but hey, it never stopped them.
>>What do you think could stop them?
>Not a clue. The might of God perhaps.....
LOL! No way! That's what got them going in the first place!
>Where are you picking these quotes from? I think I shall have to commit to this
>tradition also, though my selection of great works is still in the early stages
>of development.
It took me quite awhile before I could find any I liked so I really
can't help you there. I was getting bored of the same ol' quote
everyday, so I put together a few that I found and...the rest is
history.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://www.psn.net/~xyz
My Home Newsgroup : not yet determined
"Faith, n. Belief, without evidence, in what is told by one
who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
-- Ambrose Bierce
=============================================================
Dan Bollinger
Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version -- King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female Tyrant/Sadist?"
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
> I refrained from asking this question for a few weeks
> in the hopes it might be addressed.
>
> Is there such an archetype? Is it some attribute
> of a combination of archetypes?
>
> It is in animals regarding their young
> Good advice, don't get between a baby bear
> and the mother...
>
> in humans
> regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..
>
Lane McCullough
Dan Bollinger wrote in message <01beadbd$d3ddb860$29d9f8cc@dan-s>...
nous...@my-deja.com
Thanks Dan,
Can this also find itself in children?
I wonder if it has (at times) to do with attention
problems or health issues regarding irritability or
miserable because of morbidity not just in adults
(female, etc.)
Though I could see those involved with the King/Queen -
Warrior because of "dominance" I just wonder if this
"bitch" is more transgressive.
Rey
In article <01beadbd$d3ddb860$29d9f8cc@dan-s>,
"Dan Bollinger" <d...@claycritters.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_01BEAD9C.4CCC1860
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> ------=_NextPart_000_01BEAD9C.4CCC1860
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D3 =
> color=3D"#000080" face=3D"Comic Sans MS">Rey, Sure, why not? =
> It's a perfectly legit human trait (although full of judgement)
=
> therefore the result of an archetype at work. One thing to keep
in =
> mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that inhabit it are not
=
> politically correct. The psyche is very gendered and
=
> doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the =
> "Bitch" is the shadow of an archetype. The =
> feminine is commonly divided into Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put
=
> the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow of the adult woman, or
=
> Mother. In Robert Moore's version -- =
> King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" =
> would be a combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows.
He =
> calls them the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). =
> So, does your feeling of "Bitch" sound
like =
> the non-judgemental "Female Tyrant/Sadist?" <br>-- =
> <br><br>Dan Bollinger<br>Wabash Men's Council<br><font =
> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen</u><font =
> color=3D"#000080"><br><br><br><br><font =
> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>nous...@my-deja.com</u><font color=3D"#000000">
=
> wrote in article <<font =
> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com</u><font =
> color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> From Rey of =
> SynchroniCity:<br>> <br>> I refrained from asking this question
=
> for a few weeks<br>> in the hopes it might be addressed.<br>> =
> <br>> Is there such an archetype? Is it some
attribute<br>> =
> of a combination of archetypes?<br>> <br>> It is in animals =
> regarding their young<br>> Good advice, don't get between a baby =
> bear<br>> and the mother...<br>> <br>> in humans<br>> =
> regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..<br>> <br>> Rey<br>> =
> <br>> <br>> Sent via Deja.com <font =
> color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.deja.com/</u><font =
> color=3D"#000000"><br>> Share what you know. Learn what you =
> don't.<br>> </p>
>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></
h=
> tml>
> ------=_NextPart_000_01BEAD9C.4CCC1860--
nous...@my-deja.com
Thanks for the education. Just wondering. Also wondering
what are the animi (motivations) {not one or the other-
anima or animus}.
Rey
In article <7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>,
"Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BEADA3.5BCEB320
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
=
> Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
> attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
statement =
> that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
>
> Lane
> Dan Bollinger wrote in message
<01beadbd$d3ddb860$29d9f8cc@dan-s>...
> Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
=
> full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
=
> thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that =
> inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
=
> and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
=
> the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into =
> Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
of =
> the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version -- =
> King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a =
> combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
the =
> Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your feeling
=
> of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female Tyrant/Sadist?" =20
> --=20
> =20
> Dan Bollinger
> Wabash Men's Council
> http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
> =20
> =20
> =20
> nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
> <7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > From Rey of SynchroniCity:
> >=20
> > I refrained from asking this question for a few weeks
> > in the hopes it might be addressed.
> >=20
> > Is there such an archetype? Is it some attribute
> > of a combination of archetypes?
> >=20
> > It is in animals regarding their young
> > Good advice, don't get between a baby bear
> > and the mother...
> >=20
> > in humans
> > regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..
> >=20
> > Rey
> >=20
> >=20
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >=20
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BEADA3.5BCEB320
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
>
> <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Sure, the bitch has an archetype =
> behind=20
> it. Some famous "bitches" are Kali (from the Hindu =
> mythology)=20
> and Aphrodite (if not paid proper attention to). "Hell hath
=
> no fury=20
> like a woman scorned" is a statement that verifies the archetypal
=
> power of=20
> this side of the feminine.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Lane</FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
> style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
PADDING-LEFT: =
> 5px">
> <DIV>Dan Bollinger<D...@CLAYCRITTERS.COM> wrote in message=20
> <01beadbd$d3ddb860$29d9f8cc@dan-s>...</DIV>
> <P><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D3>Rey, =
> Sure, why not?=20
> It's a perfectly legit human trait (although full of =
> judgement)=20
> therefore the result of an archetype at work. One thing to =
> keep in=20
> mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that inhabit it are
=
> not=20
> politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
=
> and=20
> doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say
the=20
> "Bitch" is the shadow of an archetype. The =
> feminine is=20
> commonly divided into Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the=20
> "Bitch" as the acting out shadow of the adult woman, or
=
> Mother.=20
> In Robert Moore's version -- =
> King/Queen,=20
> Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a =
> combination of=20
> the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them the
Tyrant =
>
> (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does
=
> your=20
> feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental =
> "Female=20
> Tyrant/Sadist?" <BR>-- <BR><BR>Dan Bollinger<BR>Wabash
=
> Men's=20
> Council<BR><FONT=20
>
color=3D#0000ff><U>http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen</U><FONT=20
> color=3D#000080><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT=20
> color=3D#0000ff><U>nous...@my-deja.com</U><FONT color=3D#000000>
=
> wrote in=20
> article <<FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><U>7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com</U><FONT=20
> color=3D#000000>>...<BR>> From Rey of =
> SynchroniCity:<BR>>=20
> <BR>> I refrained from asking this question for a few =
> weeks<BR>> in=20
> the hopes it might be addressed.<BR>> <BR>> Is there such
an=20
> archetype? Is it some attribute<BR>> of a combination
of=20
> archetypes?<BR>> <BR>> It is in animals regarding their =
> young<BR>>=20
> Good advice, don't get between a baby bear<BR>> and the =
> mother...<BR>>=20
> <BR>> in humans<BR>> regarding?, hmmm, I don't =
> know..<BR>>=20
> <BR>> Rey<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Sent via Deja.com <FONT=20
> color=3D#0000ff><U>http://www.deja.com/</U><FONT =
> color=3D#000000><BR>> Share=20
> what you know. Learn what you don't.<BR>>=20
> =
>
</P></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLO
C=
> KQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BEADA3.5BCEB320--
The_Sage
>I just want to add my two cents, then shut up, because I have no
>interest in a long debate with the 'hair-splitter.'
>> Then why can't reality speak for itself? When is God going to post
>> here on His/Her/Its behalf? As Joseph Campbell said,
>>"Like dreams, myths are productions of the human imagination.
>> Hence, the figurations of myth are metaphorical (as dreams normally
>> are not) in two senses simultaneously, as bearing (1) PSYCHLOGICAL,
>> but at the same time (2) METAPHYSICAL, connotations...the term and
>> concept 'God' is itself but a metaphor of the unknowing mind,
>> connotative, not only beyond itself, but beyond thought. So all that
>> can be said of it, whether as touching time or eternity, has to be in
>> the way of an 'as if'..." (Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer
>> Space ,pgs 55-57).
>Sage, as always, takes the 'metaphorical' nature of mythology to be a
>proof of the metaphysical non-existence of the myth's contents. He mis-
>reads what Campbell is saying buy concentrating on (1) above, and
>ignoring (2).
Correction: Nope, I was concentrating on both.
>Campbell is pointing out that in myth...
<snip>
Clearly you are resorting to speculation and wishful thinking by
referring to what Campbell supposedly meant because you obviously
didn't read what he had to say in the rest of the context of that
quote I gave and that is why you can give no quotes from that book to
support your mis-reinterpretation. If you actually read the rest of
his book instead of make believing what he meant, you would realize
just how foolish your "argument" sounds:
"From the point of view of any orthodoxy, myth might be defined simply
as 'other people's religion,' to which an equivalent definition of
religion would be 'misunderstood mythology,' the misunderstanding
consisting in the interpretation of mythic metaphors as references to
hard fact: the Virgin Birth, for example, as a biological anomaly, or
the Promised Land as a portion of the Near East to be claimed and
settled by a people chosen of God, the term 'God' here to be
understood as denoting an actual, though invisible, masculine
personality, who created the universe and is now resident in an
invisible, though actual, heaven to which the 'justified' will go when
they die, there to be joined at the end of time by their resurrected
bodies.
What in the name of Reason or Truth, is a modern mind to make of
such evident nonsense?
...Every myth, that is to say, whether or not by intention, is
psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read,
therefore, not literally, but as metaphors." (Joseph Campbell, The
Inner Reaches of Outer Space ,pgs 55).
You stand corrected and it isn't "hair-splitting", it is actually
researching something before speaking out about it.
> As Campbell says above, all that can be said of God "has to be in
>the way of an 'as if.'" Campbell does not say, or imply, anything
>about the objective, metaphysical reality which the metaphors we use
>point to.
"As if" implies make believe and not reality.
Dan Bollinger
Lane, Excellent examples, I couldn't think of any! Thanks
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Lane McCullough <la...@io.com> wrote in article <7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>...
Dan Bollinger
Rey, you lost me on that one, animi motivations???
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7j6s7g$qrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
'uhane
as I never knew quite what to make of it at the time.
But as a woman, I think I have more than a passing
interest in the question.
Of the 3 posts that were made, all by men, I think
Dan's comes closest to the mark. Lane's comment
seems highly judgmental, and in comparing "Kali"
the destroyer/female equivalent of the male
destroyer "Shiva" to the quote "Hell hath no fury..."
seems culturally inappropriate, whereas Rey's question
just doesn't make sense to me: a "bitch" in the
animal kingdom, as in "dog", simply means female
and doesn't have the negative connotations of
the word as applied to human-animal females, therefore,
in the animal kingdom wouldn't bitch simply imply
a feminine archetype?
However, since Dan brought up the Virgin/Mother/Crone
aspect of human females, I think it important to point out
that "bitch" doesn't really apply consistently to them. In
particular, that is -- the virgin is the innocent/child
aspect; the mother is the nurturer (though I guess the
shadow aspect of Medea is present here), and the Crone
is usually seen as the shrivelled up wise woman. It
seems to me there is a fourth woman who is glaringly
absent from mythology, and perhaps that's not suprprising
considering most research and even the original myth-making
were done by the males of any culture.
What about the menopausal woman? She is too old to fit
as "Mother"; too young and still sexually active (one hopes)
to fit as Crone, yet certainly the "bitch" aspect in its
shadow sense would seem to be "out of control" and fully
present at this stage. So, then the question comes down
to, is there an archetype for the menopausal human female?
Is there an equivalent for instance in the Greek
goddesses or has any other culture ever represented her?
She seems noticeably absent from mythology, yet this is
a crucial rite of passage for any woman who has ever
been thrown into post-operational menopause or has
entered through nature's gates. Any thoughts on this
one? I find this question to be of vital personal
interest!!!
'uhane
"To understand, the intelligence must get itself dirty.
Above all, before it even gets dirty, it has to get hurt."
Henri Michaux
The others wrote:
In article <7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>,
"Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
> Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
> Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
> attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
statement
> that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
>
> Lane
> Dan Bollinger wrote in message
> Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
> full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
> thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that
> inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
> and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
> the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into
> Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version --
> King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a
> combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your
feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
Tyrant/Sadist?"
> Dan Bollinger
> Wabash Men's Council
> http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
> nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
Dan Bollinger
Rey, I'm quite sure the shadow Female/Tyrant/Sadist would have no problem transgressing against anything! In children? Let's see, Moore's boy/girl archetypal structure says the equivalent to the shadow Female/Tyrant/Sadist is the shadow Girl/High Chair Dictator/Bully. As to why these archetypes are activated instead of more productive ones, I'd look to Adler instead of Jung. What childhood decisions were made and what beliefs were formed?
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7j6rv2$qnv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
> Thanks Dan,
>
> Can this also find itself in children?
> I wonder if it has (at times) to do with attention
> problems or health issues regarding irritability or
> miserable because of morbidity not just in adults
> (female, etc.)
>
> Though I could see those involved with the King/Queen -
> Warrior because of "dominance" I just wonder if this
> "bitch" is more transgressive.
>
> Rey
>
> In article <
01beadbd$d3ddb860$29d9f8cc@dan-s>,
> "Dan Bollinger" <d...@claycritters.com> wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_01BEAD9C.4CCC1860
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
> full of
> > judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One thing to
> keep
> > in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that inhabit it are
> not
> > politically correct. The psyche is very gendered and doesn't
> apologize
> > for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is the shadow of an
> archetype.
> > The feminine is commonly divided into Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd
> put the
> > "Bitch" as the acting out shadow of the adult woman, or Mother. In
> > Robert Moore's version -- King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the
> > "Bitch" would be a combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out
> shadows. He
> > calls them the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So,
> does
> > your feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
> > Tyrant/Sadist?"
> > --
> >
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
> >
> > nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article
> <7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > > From Rey of SynchroniCity:
> > >
> > > I refrained from asking this question for a few weeks
> > > in the hopes it might be addressed.
> > >
> > > Is there such an archetype? Is it some attribute
> > > of a combination of archetypes?
> > >
> > > It is in animals regarding their young
> > > Good advice, don't get between a baby bear
> > > and the mother...
> > >
> > > in humans
> > > regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..
> > >
> > > Rey
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_01BEAD9C.4CCC1860
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D3 =
> > color=3D"#000080" face=3D"Comic Sans MS">Rey, Sure, why not? =
> > It's a perfectly legit human trait (although full of judgement)
> =
> > therefore the result of an archetype at work. One thing to keep
> in =
> > mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that inhabit it are not
> =
> > politically correct. The psyche is very gendered and
> =
> > doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the =
> > "Bitch" is the shadow of an archetype. The =
> > feminine is commonly divided into Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put
> =
> > the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow of the adult woman, or
> =
> > Mother. In Robert Moore's version -- =
> > King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" =
> > would be a combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows.
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen</u><font =
nous...@my-deja.com</u><font color=3D"#000000">
7iuta8$md2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com</u><font =
http://www.deja.com/</u><font =
Dan Bollinger
'uhane, Good thoughts. Yes, the word "bitch" does have negative connotations and carries a judgement as well. And, it accurately implies a female shadow at work. Since it is slang and derogatory, I'm much more likely to use other, less volatile words to describe the female shadow. Did you know there is an older derivation of the word? Prior that is to meaning "adult female canine?" The lead dog in a hunt, including a sacred hunt, is called the Bitch if it was female. The Bitch of the Hunt goes back to the mythology of Diana/Artemis the Huntress, so women inherit this archetype quite honestly. Unfortunately, the church converted all things pagan to the equivalent of evil and Bitch got labeled as negative, too about 1000 years ago. The lead dog in a pack must have leadership and viscious qualities, which was were I was going with saying that The Bitch archetype is the shadow of the Queen/Warrior. You bring up a good point about all the prior respondents being male, why is that? For the sake of balance the male shadow of the King/Warrior would be the Male/Tyrant/Sadist. In slang we'd probably use "Jerk" (although that isn't quite strong enough) or the closer "A**hole." Then again, maybe this energy really is feminine at the core as evidenced by "Son of a Bitch!" <g>
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <7j84fr$81u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> "Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
> > Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
> > attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
> statement
> > that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
> >
> > Lane
>
> > Dan Bollinger wrote in message
>
> > Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
> > full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
> > thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that
> > inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
> > and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
> > the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into
> > Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
> of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version --
> > King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a
> > combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
> the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your
> feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
> Tyrant/Sadist?"
>
>
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
>
> > nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
Dan Bollinger
'uhane, (I'm making divided replies for the sake of clarity) You make a good point with Virgin/Mother/Crone. It certainly isn't sufficient to describe the stages of life. Then again, our western culture uses the even simpler girl/woman or boy/man. There are other structures as well, check out The 13 Original Clan Mothers by Jamie Sams. She gives 12 stages of life with the 13th being the shadow feminine. To me this isn't accurate either, for two reasons. One, basing a feminine psychology solely on her ability to give birth seems limiting. Sort of like basing a male psychology on his ability to "fix things", we'd have the Tinker/Fixer/Magi. <g> Fun, but not exactly all encompasing is it? The other reason is that for me, each of the twelve stages Jamie offers has it's own distinct shadow. How a Crone acts out negatively is very much different than how a Virgin acts out. Your comment about the Mother/Medea shadow is quite close I think to describing The Bitch archetype.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <7j84fr$81u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> "Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
> > Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
> > attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
> statement
> > that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
> >
> > Lane
>
> > Dan Bollinger wrote in message
>
> > Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
> > full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
> > thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that
> > inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
> > and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
> > the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into
> > Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
> of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version --
> > King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a
> > combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
> the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your
> feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
> Tyrant/Sadist?"
>
>
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
>
> > nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
Lane McCullough
dieties that are associated with it did not connect you or any specific
woman with that behavior. I think that it is naive to deny that there is
some accuracy to the stereotypes we assign to the genders and I believe that
this is because of the archetypal influence behind the genders. For
Instance, I have said many times that much of the shadow of american men can
be seen in Homer Simpson. When I referred to the "Hell hath no fury..."
quote that was meant to connect an archetype (not the same as a human being)
with this experience of humanity.
It is my perception that the Jung ng is a place where you don't have to
worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about genders,
race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to Jungians
in the first place.
If anybody else has followed this, give me some feedback so I can either
verify my perception or adjust.
Thank you,
Lane
'uhane wrote in message <7j84fr$81u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
>> Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
>> attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
>statement
>> that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
>>
>> Lane
>
>> Dan Bollinger wrote in message
>
>> Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
>> full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
>> thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that
>> inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
>> and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
>> the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into
>> Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
>of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version --
>> King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a
>> combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
>the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your
>feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
>Tyrant/Sadist?"
>
>
>> Dan Bollinger
>> Wabash Men's Council
>> http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
>
>> nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
duende
Lane McCullough wrote:
Uhane, I think you're projecting. My comments about the dark anima and the
dieties that are associated with it did not connect you or any specific
woman with that behavior. I think that it is naive to deny that there is
some accuracy to the stereotypes we assign to the genders and I believe that
this is because of the archetypal influence behind the genders. For
Instance, I have said many times that much of the shadow of american men can
be seen in Homer Simpson. When I referred to the "Hell hath no fury..."
quote that was meant to connect an archetype (not the same as a human being)
with this experience of humanity.
Lane, I wasn't projecting, nor did I think
you were referring to any
particular woman. I am simply trying
to ask a couple of questions!!! ;)
But I did think you "mixed metaphors" by
placing Kali (the female
equivalent of Shiva) in the same sentence
with "hell hath no fury..."
which is talking about love-scorned women
(yes, they *can* be
bitches). It's not the term bitch that
I was objecting to --- perhaps
reread my post for my true question, which
is, as Dan correctly
picked up on, that the literature on female
stages: virgin/mother/crone
leaves out a very significant female rite
of passage which is menopause
and which is a stage where I feel "the bitch"
or whatever she is, might
be quite active. Yet no one has an
archetypal or shadow name,
like we do for Medea as the (bitch) shadow
for the mother.
Who is the archetype we may ascribe to the
menopausal woman?
If you correctly read my post, you'll see
this is the main thesis.
(By the way, I took absolutely no offense
at your post, I just didn't feel
it addressed Rey's strange question, strange
because again, as Dan points
out "bitch" used to simply refer to a female
dog -- now it means
so much more). But what Rey's question
did do, for me, I don't
know how others feel, is make evident that
at least one very
important aspect of a woman's life -- the
rite of passage through
menopause -- seems absent from myth.
Perhaps I should
address this question to alt.mythology?
(Sorry for not breaking this into paragraphs! I'm in a rush)
'uhane
duende
Lane McCullough wrote:
> It is my perception that the Jung ng is a place where you don't have to
> worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about genders,
> race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to Jungians
> in the first place.
Lane, Yet Jung does talk about the anima/animus, and I think Rey's question,
a valid one, and mine, what is the archetype for the menopausal woman,
an absolutely *vital* one. We women simply have no guidance from
Jung or myth or as far as I can see from any source on this very painful
rite of passage.
'uhane
duende
isn't more literature out there on this isn't it? And like you say,
even what is in print is unsatisfying. But the menopausal
stage is a noticable gap in our mythology! Surely someone
must have written about it -- hopefully others may have some
light to shed on this topic. Thanks for the response -- I think
perhaps this is just an area of life our culture has preferred to
keep "in the dark"...;)
'uhane
Lane McCullough
understand that you were looking for the Archetype to fit the menopausal
woman. I thought Dan had started the discussion.
I would imagine that there would not be just one archetype related to that
stage in a woman's life. I encourage you to use the mythology ng. I think
they would be helpful.
It's interesting. Finding the right god or goddess to reflect the
experience you are having is a growth experience in and of itself. For
instance, in seeking a greek deity that accurately represented the
technology issue as I see it, I had to learn more about the different greek
gods. I found out a lot about Hephaistos (sp?) before I realized that he
wasn't it. I finally realized that Prometheus was the one I was looking
for. Now I have a symbol to study and ponder and get to know in order to
help illuminate this issue of technology that I always ponder. The process
is like seeking the right resonance of something that you can't quite
describe with mere words. It also confirms that these human issues just
keep coming around and around.
Lane
duende wrote in message <3757F59C...@aloha.net>...
>
>
>Lane McCullough wrote:
>
>> It is my perception that the Jung ng is a place where you don't have to
>> worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about
genders,
>> race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to
Jungians
>> in the first place.
>
Dennis C.
Lane McCullough wrote in message <7j8te4$7j5$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>It's interesting. Finding the right god or goddess to reflect the
>experience you are having is a growth experience in and of itself. For
>instance, in seeking a greek deity that accurately represented the
>technology issue as I see it, I had to learn more about the different
greek
>gods. I found out a lot about Hephaistos (sp?) before I realized that he
>wasn't it. I finally realized that Prometheus was the one I was looking
>for. Now I have a symbol to study and ponder and get to know in order to
>help illuminate this issue of technology that I always ponder. The
process
>is like seeking the right resonance of something that you can't quite
>describe with mere words. It also confirms that these human issues just
>keep coming around and around.
There's also the mortal, Daedalus, who constructed the labyrinth in Crete,
the wings of wax for Icarus and himself to escape Crete, and also a few
other "technological" wonders.
Dennis
Sharyn C
>> worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about
genders,
>> race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to
Jungians
>> in the first place.
>
question,
>a valid one, and mine, what is the archetype for the menopausal woman,
>an absolutely *vital* one. We women simply have no guidance from
>Jung or myth or as far as I can see from any source on this very painful
>rite of passage.
>
>'uhane
Linda and All:
A friend of mine who is a Ph.D. candidate at Pacifica wrote a paper a couple
of years ago about this very topic, the missing 4th Goddess as symbol of the
stage between Mother and Crone. Perhaps our longevity in present times has
caused this need to have an archetypal image to associate with this stage,
which is extremely important as you've pointed out Linda. Or another way to
put it would be that there is an archetype motivating women's behavior at
this stage more now than in previous history. In other words I don't think
it would be a "new" archetype, but one that hasn't been "up" in
consciousness (at least for most of civilization) for a long time. Perhaps
2,000 years or more?
Obviously, after a woman has reached the time when children are on their
own, she has a lot of living left to do. Many women who enter analysis do
so around this time, as the Self is urging them to develop their potential
and use their time for something meaningful. Many women literalize this
urge to give birth to new meaning in their life by actually having another
child between 38 and 42 (approximately). Also, many women pursue university
degrees around this time. It's as if a part of the animus goes into high
gear in development at that time. I think I've mentioned this before on the
newsgroup around this issue, that the Greek goddess Athena could possibly be
an answer. She was founder of Athens and mentor to many, as well as being
strong and intelligent, and etc. Also, she's associated with or perhaps a
development from the earlier Bird goddesses of the more matriarchal or
matrilineal cultures.
In a way Athena has gotten a bad rap over the years in Jungian literature
and myth, being associated with the animus driven woman, who can be a
"bitch" (unfeeling and etc.) in the strictest sense of the word. In this
way a woman's strength sometimes gets confused with or accused of being
negative, when not all of a woman's strength is from the dark or shadow side
of the archetype. Obviously that would be a patriarchal reaction to a
woman's strength. I think if you read a lot of the stories around Athena
and the Bird goddesses, you will begin to see attributes that aren't
commonly talked about that fit this 3rd stage between Mother and Crone.
Just as an example, the idea around Athena founding the city certainly fits
with how women in their 40's and older often get very involved in their
communities in one way or another.
I just want to say also, as Dan has pointed out before, that every archetype
has a polarity between dark and light, so there is in my opinion a shadow
side, or dark side to the Virgin, Mother and Crone as well. Obviously Medea
is a good example of the dark side of the Mother, and the mean old Witch,
such as the Russian fairytale character of Baba Yaga, would be the dark side
of the Crone. The dark side of the Virgin could be seen in some of
Aphrodite's (as Lane pointed out) or Artemis' darker qualities perhaps.
Well, these are just some "off the top of my head" thoughts, and this is an
important topic for myself as I'm definitely in those years between Mother
and Crone.
Sharyn
nous...@my-deja.com
From my understanding I believe Lane is correct.
Though the phrase is commonly associated to women, a man
or animal can "bitch" simply by body language. Though
I think in Mexican they call the man a "Cavrone".
I think it refers to the relentless of possibly an
insane desire of some self or other interest more
like some control freak. But I don't know enough about
it that is why I am seeking some feedback.
I feel it might also apply to a "situation." For example,
Bill, (Analog Tao) mentioned that a friend of his whom he grew up
with that did a remake of Moby Dick. I see the "hero"
as a "bitch" because it reminds me of a crazed man
chasing a big white whale and dominating others against
their will at their expense to fullfil his own destiny
and thus become the hero of his own play.
And...what a "bitch" of situation.
I'd hate to use the word androgeny because I read some
posts here on the ng that that is not the correct one
and I believe I would see why not.
Rey
In article <7j8nku$416$1...@hiram.io.com>,
nous...@my-deja.com
"Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
> Well.......excuse my sensitive self. Perhaps I am the projector. I
did not
> understand that you were looking for the Archetype to fit the
menopausal
> woman. I thought Dan had started the discussion.
>
> I would imagine that there would not be just one archetype related to
that
> stage in a woman's life. I encourage you to use the mythology ng. I
think
> they would be helpful.
>
> experience you are having is a growth experience in and of itself.
For
> instance, in seeking a greek deity that accurately represented the
> technology issue as I see it, I had to learn more about the different
greek
> gods. I found out a lot about Hephaistos (sp?) before I realized that
he
> wasn't it. I finally realized that Prometheus was the one I was
looking
> for. Now I have a symbol to study and ponder and get to know in order
to
> help illuminate this issue of technology that I always ponder. The
process
> is like seeking the right resonance of something that you can't quite
> describe with mere words. It also confirms that these human issues
just
> keep coming around and around.
>
have to
> >> worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about
> genders,
> >> race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to
> Jungians
> >> in the first place.
> >
> question,
> >a valid one, and mine, what is the archetype for the menopausal
woman,
> >an absolutely *vital* one. We women simply have no guidance from
> >Jung or myth or as far as I can see from any source on this very
painful
> >rite of passage.
> >
> >'uhane
> >
>
>
JungLdy
>connotations and carries a judgement as well. And, it accurately implies a
>female shadow at work. Since it is slang and derogatory, I'm much more
>likely to use other, less volatile words to describe the female shadow.
female shadow at work.'
Having been verbally abused by this term for YEARS (my soon to be ex STILL
calls me this in front of the kids...) ...and then realizing what I was being
labeled bitch for was actually a PROJECTION of one's shadow onto me, I think
we should be more careful to label 'female shadow' with such a term.
For its been my experience, and that of countless other women, that to be
labeled a 'bitch' had nothing to do with THEIR personality, actions or shadow,
but was the projection of other's onto them instead.
Oh sure, I can be a bitch...BUT, its not my shadow that's showing those
elements at all. Rather its my active and natural emotions such as
frustration, stress, tiredness, PMS, depression, etc. Elements of me that are
not shadowed anywhere. Elements of me that are actively a part of who I am
when I am low...
Rather than the shadow, I consider the 'bitch' in me to be my valley's when
I'm decended from my peaks...
Denise
nous...@my-deja.com
due...@aloha.net wrote:
>
> --------------60C4CEA866CA7D8BF36548E3
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
I guess I didn't think about the "man - woman thing". I just
used the bear example to demonstrate that it does not only hold
true for humans. If I would have used dog, I might have caught
the drift sooner.
Rey
> > > and doesn't have the negative connotations of
> > > the word as applied to human-animal females, therefore,
> > > in the animal kingdom wouldn't bitch simply imply
> > > a feminine archetype?
> >
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
In another post my opinion that "bitch" could also apply to
a "situation". In that one the culprit representing "the bitch"
is that insane man chasing a big white whale and dominating others
at their expense so that he could catch the fish and become the
hero of the story.
So he (a man) is answering the call of "the bith" 'archetype'
(pattern) and the situation itself is a representation.
I hope I make more sense now.
Perhaps Dan's Warrior is famous for calling out that mandalla.
Rey
nous...@my-deja.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
I am not sure if it is Filipine, Hawain, or South
American usage. But it strips away the "feminine"
and "masuline" favoritism. That was my only intent.
It is commonly used like "what is you animi"
as in "to motivate".
Although it might be dangerously close to the Latin
masculine plural in the language tree?
Rey
P.S. Dan, I notice that there are additions of
an HTML copy of the same thing. I think it only seems
to appear when you post. I wonder if your browser
in the preferences are set to sending in both
text and html. I am not sure if others are getting
the same thing.
Dan Bollinger
Denise, Like I said, the word carries a lot of judgement and it sounds like you are sensitive to it.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
JungLdy <jun...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990604181449...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
> >'uhane, Good thoughts. Yes, the word "bitch" does have negative
> >connotations and carries a judgement as well. And, it accurately implies a
> >female shadow at work. Since it is slang and derogatory, I'm much more
> >likely to use other, less volatile words to describe the female shadow.
JJubala
>I just want to say also, as Dan has pointed out before, that every archetype
>has a polarity between dark and light, so there is in my opinion a shadow
>side, or dark side to the Virgin, Mother and Crone as well. Obviously Medea
>is a good example of the dark side of the Mother, and the mean old Witch,
>such as the Russian fairytale character of Baba Yaga, would be the dark
>side
>of the Crone. The dark side of the Virgin could be seen in some of
>Aphrodite's (as Lane pointed out) or Artemis' darker qualities perhaps.
Yes. And I think this is another place where the Black Madonna as archetype is
very fitting. Marion Woodman has been saying for years now that the Black
Madonna has been appearing in abundance in her analysand's dreams.
Just a thought.
Jack
****************************************************
"Which is harder: to be executed, or to suffer that prolonged agony which
consists in being trampled to death by geese?" Kierkegaard
nous...@my-deja.com
Mankind's gift: Time bomb medallion strapped round the neck
Adamha Marching Across Time
tick tick tick
trying to act "as if" there was time to diffuse...
Time bomb medallion strapped round the neck...
Adamha bowing
tick tick tick
Raising the head
"Reign, RAIN! OH CLEAR PURE RAINBOW!"
(K)New clear future not nuclear war
(K)New clear future...
tick tick
trying to act "as if" there was time to diffuse....
So much deep ends
up on
a Rain-bow a flower be -
sides the right child-
ren.
Rey
JungLdy
But, I find it rather sad that a women's 'shadow' on a collective basis is
labeled a bitch. What exactly does that entail?
Being independent, successful, castrating, cunning, ruthless, whorish,
indifferent, what is it?
I think unless and until we can say exactly WHAT a bitch is then how can we say
it is the nature of a woman's shadow. And dare we say it is a collective
nature of women's shadow? Is that not overgeneralizing?
To say a woman may use exhibit the mother archetype would be to say she is
perhaps nuturing, loving, giving, compassionate, etc. She may even be a mother
archetype without ever having birthed offspring.
But to say that a women's shadow is a 'bitch' archetype is too vague in my
book. Her shadow may exhibit 'bitch' elements but to say that is THE nature of
women's shadow I think is wreckless and too stereotypical.
I can be ruthless, manipulative, conniving, etc. and be acting out of 'shadow'
and be labeled a 'bitch' because of my gender. Yet, if I were Bill Gates, I'd
be a genius and rich...
Denise
Polymatt
I can find a post in which anyone has answered your questioned yet. John
Dalton, an English chemist of the 19th Century, certainly produced strong
evidence in favour of the existence of atoms through his work in chemical
reactions. I guess the real substancial evidence came with JJ Thomson in about
1900 when he showed using a state-of-the-art 'cathode ray' that there were
positive and negative charges, the negative ones being found in the flow of
electricity. From his data, he gathered a ratio which gave a massive positive
charge and minute negative one ( something like 2000 : 1 ). This is how he
developed his plum-pudding model of the atom, wherein the little 'electrons'
were suspended in a large sphere - the proton.
And so began the quantum era....
Matt
Dan Bollinger
Good points, Denise, and you make a couple that I want to respond to. Mostly, it's about looking at the same thing from two different viewpoints.
I'm with you on the uncomfortable sounding word part. For the umpteenth time, the word itself carries with it a definition (which I think is accurately part of a woman's shadow) and a connotation (which is unfair and deameaning name-calling). Because of the latter, I'm not going to use the "The Bitch" as a valid name for the former no matter how accurate it might be. That's why I choose to lead the thread into using existing, generalized terminology already in use by some Jungians. (see Moore & Gillette).
There seems to be a split between Jungians on how to deal with archetypal structures. On one hand are the Dream Jungians (my term) who look at the archetypal elements as they are personally portrayed in dreams. Each archetype is colored, and biased, by the dreamer's life history, culture, religion, race, gender, etc. Then there are the Depth Jungians (their term) who identify base structures, or elements, which we all have in common. Not only do we have them in common with every man and woman living in the world today regardless of race or religion, but with every human that ever walked the earth. I fit into the latter group, and it sounds like you fit more into the former group. Consequently, I don't have a problem talking in what you percieve to be generalities (to me they are specific because we each have them). So when I talk about The Warrior archetype in all of us and its shadow; I can also see how this might manifest itself as a specific character in a dream. It might have positive or negative attributes in the dream as well, that is the archetype might show up as it's shadow. The dreamer might even give this character a name to identify it, such as "The Soldier who Holds a Musket," "The Policeman," "The Bitch", or "My Guardian." The names are personalized to suit the dreamer which is where we came in with Rey's initial posting, to his way of thinking (dreaming) there is a Bitch archetype, and he asks "Is this true for all women?" (Correct me if I'm wrong, Rey).
So, to wrap this up, The Bitch isn't anymore stereotypical than The Mother is. The Mother is more descriptive of a positive, generative aspect of the psyche (which all women posses). Whereas The Mother's shadow (and again I won't use Bitch) is the Devouring Mother. This shadow of The Mother is equally part of every woman's psyche. This doesn't mean that every woman must portray The Devouring Mother, only that the potential exists in all women, in all lands, in all times as equally as The Mother is a potential in all women. Like you said, even a woman who never had a baby may activate The Mother archetype.
Gee, I hope this clarifies things.... <g>
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
JungLdy <jun...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990604222254...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
Dan Bollinger
'uhane, Hope you get this before your move! First, you mention that "the original myth-making
were done by the males of any culture." I read a book by a mythologist who disagrees with you. The author said that myths, stories and fables, were made equally by men and women to tell to the children. 50/50. Over the past two-hundred years or so, with men leaving the home for the workplace, women began taking on more and more of the child-rearing, and that the myths we are left with are the ones passed down to us by our mothers and are decidedly feminine. Try it, make a list of all the children's stories you know well enough to tell and then look at the title or the sex of the protagonist. I did this with a small group once and the ratio was something like 3:1 in favor of women/girls.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <7j84fr$81u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> It's taken me awhile to respond to this original post
> as I never knew quite what to make of it at the time.
> But as a woman, I think I have more than a passing
> interest in the question.
>
> Of the 3 posts that were made, all by men, I think
> Dan's comes closest to the mark. Lane's comment
> seems highly judgmental, and in comparing "Kali"
> the destroyer/female equivalent of the male
> destroyer "Shiva" to the quote "Hell hath no fury..."
> seems culturally inappropriate, whereas Rey's question
> just doesn't make sense to me: a "bitch" in the
> animal kingdom, as in "dog", simply means female
> and doesn't have the negative connotations of
> the word as applied to human-animal females, therefore,
> in the animal kingdom wouldn't bitch simply imply
> a feminine archetype?
>
> In article <7j63co$939$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> "Lane McCullough" <la...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure, the bitch has an archetype behind it. Some famous "bitches" are
> > Kali (from the Hindu mythology) and Aphrodite (if not paid proper =
> > attention to). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a
> statement
> > that verifies the archetypal power of this side of the feminine.
> >
> > Lane
>
> > Dan Bollinger wrote in message
>
> > Rey, Sure, why not? It's a perfectly legit human trait (although
> > full of judgement) therefore the result of an archetype at work. One
> > thing to keep in mind is that the psyche and all the archetypes that
> > inhabit it are not politically correct. The psyche is very gendered
> > and doesn't apologize for it. I'd go farther and say the "Bitch" is
> > the shadow of an archetype. The feminine is commonly divided into
> > Virgin, Mother, Crone. I'd put the "Bitch" as the acting out shadow
> of the adult woman, or Mother. In Robert Moore's version --
> > King/Queen, Warrior, Magician, Lover -- the "Bitch" would be a
> > combination of the Queen/Warrior acting-out shadows. He calls them
> the Tyrant (King/Queen) and the Sadist (Warrior). So, does your
> feeling of "Bitch" sound like the non-judgemental "Female
> Tyrant/Sadist?"
>
>
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
>
> > nous...@my-deja.com wrote in article =
>
> > > From Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
> > > I refrained from asking this question for a few weeks
> > > in the hopes it might be addressed.
> > > Is there such an archetype? Is it some attribute
> > > of a combination of archetypes?
>
> > > It is in animals regarding their young
> > > Good advice, don't get between a baby bear
> > > and the mother...
> > > in humans
> > > regarding?, hmmm, I don't know..
>
'uhane
I read that males were responsible for the myth-making in Greek
society, and I guess I've been searching for a Greek goddess to
fit this "menopausal" archetypal "bitch". Still, even though
what you say may well be true, why do we still hear no mention
of an archetype which goes along with this phase of life? Was
it a forbidden topic? Certainly it was a rite of passage which
must have been recognized in some way by older cultures just as
the onset of menstruation was acknowledged in many of these
same cultures.
Lane says this will send me to the archives to do research,
and I've only until the 15th, but something for me to contemplate
in the northern woods, eh?
Thanks for your help & input. Linda
In article <01beaf4b$f88498c0$31d9f8cc@dan-s>,
"Dan Bollinger" <d...@claycritters.com> wrote:
>
> 'uhane, Hope you get this before your move! First, you mention that
"the
> original myth-making
> were done by the males of any culture." I read a book by a
mythologist
> who disagrees with you. The author said that myths, stories and
fables,
> were made equally by men and women to tell to the children. 50/50.
Over
> the past two-hundred years or so, with men leaving the home for the
> workplace, women began taking on more and more of the child-rearing,
and
> that the myths we are left with are the ones passed down to us by our
> mothers and are decidedly feminine. Try it, make a list of all the
> children's stories you know well enough to tell and then look at the
title
> or the sex of the protagonist. I did this with a small group once
and the
> ratio was something like 3:1 in favor of women/girls.
>
> --
>
> Dan Bollinger
> Wabash Men's Council
> http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
'uhane
"Sharyn C" <sha...@ris.net> wrote:
> Linda and All:
>
> A friend of mine who is a Ph.D. candidate at Pacifica wrote a paper a
couple
> of years ago about this very topic, the missing 4th Goddess as symbol
of the
> stage between Mother and Crone. I think I've mentioned this before
on the
> newsgroup around this issue, that the Greek goddess Athena could
possibly be
> Well, these are just some "off the top of my head" thoughts, and this
is an
> important topic for myself as I'm definitely in those years between
Mother
> and Crone.
>
> Sharyn
Sharyn, thanks for this enlightening post -- I'd like to do some
more research on Athene myself. As one who has been thrown into
this phase of life, rather unexpectedly through surgical means,
I'm forced to confront this archetypal feminine shadow. Who is
she, I really want to know? One doubt I have about AThene which
perhaps you can address -- I've read that according to one source
when there was a great debate among the gods and goddesses over
an issue, they were equally divided -- gods against the goddesses,
and Athene was the one who was to cast the decididing vote (remember
she was said to have sprung from the head of Zeus, having no
mother -- this already seems to me that Athene was a "male" creation
and not a feminine one), anyway, Athene cast her vote in favor of
the gods saying that, "Whenever I am faced with a choice between
the male or the female, I will always side with the male."
Now is that credible for a feminine archetype, especially one for
the phase of life I am describing which seems, well just too
antagonistic to side with anyone, but particularly the "gods"?
Had you heard this story and do you know if it is an accepted
part of Greek myth?
Also, wasn't Athene revered as a "Mother" goddess of Athens? Wouldn't
this therefore, place her definitely *not* in the phase I am describing?
Thanks, Linda
'uhane
What do you think about Medusa as the archetype I am searching for?
Linda
Polymatt
I know very little about archetypes, and only a little more about mythology. In
terms of the 'bitch' archetype, I guess that Medusa would be the closest guess,
but I think it's unlikely that such an archetypal individual would be found in
classical mythology. Your guess about the most ancient cultures having one
would be accurate, I believe. Try the Mayan, Babylonian, Sumerian or best of
all, Assyrian. I say that because Assyria was a 'blasphemous' kingdom and its
mythology would be riddled with 'bitch' archetypes I would guess.
From my knowledge of Nordic mythology I would say there is nothing comparable
to what has been described in this thread. The Frost Giants perhaps, but it is
a vague connection. Ultimately, Medusa seems a good candidate as does an
Assyrian goddess ( though I know nothing of that societies mythos ). the Mayans
respected age as an important factor therefore it is distinctly possible that
they would view the women of the age range described as significant. If,
entering their menopause, they acted in abitchy manner, this would almost
certainly merit a mythological projection.
I'll do a little reading, but it is all worth checking out.
Thanks for this great thread,
Matt
Dan Bollinger
Sharyn, Jed Diamond, in his book Male Menopause, relates men's version of the change of life with women's, specifically during the shift in hormones at age 40-50. He says men's and women's estrogen to testostrogen ratio shift then. During that time women become "testy" and men become "esty." (He provides many citations from research around the world which is beyond me.) He mentions women becoming more involved in community than family, and also mentions getting involved in business, too. So there is some real support for this shift which you and 'uhane are bringing up. I don't have a clue what this archetype of stage of life might be called. I do know it has to do with transformation and mid-life crisis, both of which are like the Hero's Journey. In men, if they are successful in making the transition, the stage of life which follows is called Elderhood, which is prior to Wise Old Man. So maybe this is an initiation much like the initiation between girl to woman with first menses?
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Sharyn C <sha...@ris.net> wrote in article <92852934...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
> duende wrote in message <3757F59C...@aloha.net>...
> >
> >
> >Lane McCullough wrote:
> >
> >> It is my perception that the Jung ng is a place where you don't have to
> >> worry about the participants making sweeping generalizations about
> genders,
> >> race, etc. because it is that kind of behavior that is suspect to
> Jungians
> >> in the first place.
> >
> >Lane, Yet Jung does talk about the anima/animus, and I think Rey's
> question,
> >a valid one, and mine, what is the archetype for the menopausal woman,
> >an absolutely *vital* one. We women simply have no guidance from
> >Jung or myth or as far as I can see from any source on this very painful
> >rite of passage.
> >
> >'uhane
>
>
> Linda and All:
>
> A friend of mine who is a Ph.D. candidate at Pacifica wrote a paper a couple
> of years ago about this very topic, the missing 4th Goddess as symbol of the
> stage between Mother and Crone. Perhaps our longevity in present times has
> caused this need to have an archetypal image to associate with this stage,
> which is extremely important as you've pointed out Linda. Or another way to
> put it would be that there is an archetype motivating women's behavior at
> this stage more now than in previous history. In other words I don't think
> it would be a "new" archetype, but one that hasn't been "up" in
> consciousness (at least for most of civilization) for a long time. Perhaps
> 2,000 years or more?
>
> Obviously, after a woman has reached the time when children are on their
> own, she has a lot of living left to do. Many women who enter analysis do
> so around this time, as the Self is urging them to develop their potential
> and use their time for something meaningful. Many women literalize this
> urge to give birth to new meaning in their life by actually having another
> child between 38 and 42 (approximately). Also, many women pursue university
> degrees around this time. It's as if a part of the animus goes into high
> gear in development at that time. I think I've mentioned this before on the
> newsgroup around this issue, that the Greek goddess Athena could possibly be
> an answer. She was founder of Athens and mentor to many, as well as being
> strong and intelligent, and etc. Also, she's associated with or perhaps a
> development from the earlier Bird goddesses of the more matriarchal or
> matrilineal cultures.
>
> In a way Athena has gotten a bad rap over the years in Jungian literature
> and myth, being associated with the animus driven woman, who can be a
> "bitch" (unfeeling and etc.) in the strictest sense of the word. In this
> way a woman's strength sometimes gets confused with or accused of being
> negative, when not all of a woman's strength is from the dark or shadow side
> of the archetype. Obviously that would be a patriarchal reaction to a
> woman's strength. I think if you read a lot of the stories around Athena
> and the Bird goddesses, you will begin to see attributes that aren't
> commonly talked about that fit this 3rd stage between Mother and Crone.
> Just as an example, the idea around Athena founding the city certainly fits
> with how women in their 40's and older often get very involved in their
> communities in one way or another.
>
> I just want to say also, as Dan has pointed out before, that every archetype
> has a polarity between dark and light, so there is in my opinion a shadow
> side, or dark side to the Virgin, Mother and Crone as well. Obviously Medea
> is a good example of the dark side of the Mother, and the mean old Witch,
> such as the Russian fairytale character of Baba Yaga, would be the dark side
> of the Crone. The dark side of the Virgin could be seen in some of
> Aphrodite's (as Lane pointed out) or Artemis' darker qualities perhaps.
>
'uhane
JungLdy wrote:
> Rather than the shadow, I consider the 'bitch' in me to be my valley's when
> I'm decended from my peaks...
>
> Denise
Denise, I think *all* women have been abused by this word, but guessing
from your post about PMS, etc. I don't think you've faced this *particular*
female shadow yet.
Dan has explained very well that it's not the preferable term, yet it does
reflect an aspect of what we're searching for in this archetype. I like
his description of the mid life crisis in men as becoming "esty" and in
women as becoming "testy" -- okay, maybe we're looking for this
"testy" archetype but somehow that term doesn't carry the impact
and "horror" of this particular shadow, which is why I suggested
Medusa as a possible candidate for the archetype.
Medusa is a complex figure, not completely shadowy and evil
at all (her blood gives birth to Pegasus and was also used in healing
rites according to Baring). Noel Cobb suggests that it wasn't her
hideous aspect which caused men to turn to stone, but her beauty.
And the poet Rilke said that the first stage of one's encounter
with beauty *is* horror. I don't know if this helps you see where
I'm trying to go with this, but it's way beyond the "B" word!! And
hey, I have to be honest, that's what I've been lately -- and I probably
have all the women in this ng beat by a mile lately with my "B"
behavior & mood swings. So hang in there, darlin', we'll find a better
word, and I'd never consider that word for you!!! ;-) (Your ex was an
official jerk for saying that to you & you can tell him I said so. And
I'm not being facetious either -- I *know* you are a kind, tender-hearted
woman and I understand perfectly why this word hurts you. I'm just
trying to figure out what the *hell* is happening to me before I go around
the bend. -- And lately I've been, well, less than sweet. If anyone
qualifies to be called one, it's probably me. Comprende?
Aloha, Linda
"Life has surrounded itself with a mysterious beauty and
terror, which the human senses cannot, therefore, define,
but to which a great poet can pray..." S. Obstfelder
'uhane
>yet it does
>reflect an aspect of what we're searching for in this archetype.
Denise, I really am confused by this -- it seems you are not having the sameI can accept this lock, stock and barrel. What I OBJECTED to was the assertion
that the bitch archetype was THE shadow of women.
conversation I am -- I really am just searching for the archetype behind
the menopausal phase -- nothing more -- Rey's question acted as a
catalyst for this quest. I never "asserted", and I didn't read of anyone
else asserting, that BITCH was THE shadow of a woman, in fact most felt
it was an unsatisfactory term, just as you do, so we are searching
for another. If anyone *had* asserted this, I'm sure I too would have been
offended, but to my knowledge, no one has.
As I said, I'm looking at
Medusa. This is part of the process of
archetypal psychology as
put forth by James Hillman --
some people don't identify
with his approach. For me, this quest
has relevance -- maybe not
for you. That's okay, but am I not free to ask
others for help in searching
for the appropriate archetype in an
issue of crucial importance
to me and any woman who is
in this phase of life?
This *is* a Jungian ng and many here are *much*
more knowledgeable of archetypes
than I am. So, I posed my
dilemma which is: Virgin/Mother/Crone
does not encompass
the entire feminine psyche.
What other essences are lacking?
Why have these archetypes
been hidden from view?
I don't care how much I face a bitch in the future ( I was raised by theYet I am not speaking of the Mother phase or your mother. I can't
biggest one of all...)
help but think, you have missed my point altogether, and I certainly
don't understand your hostility. I am not saying *my*
experience will be yours. I've been thrown into it unnaturally, by
surgery which has put me through hell. If that offends you, well
I don't know what to say. If you are lucky, you will enter this
phase as nature intended without intrusive means inflicted on your
body. Many of my friends have gone through this phase as nature
intended, gradually, and with few or no negative experiences --
I hope you have no negative consequences when your time comes...
But that ain't my experience
and why should I apologize for
that? I came to this
ng to ask for help because so many here
have much more extensive
knowledge of depth psychology and
mythology than I do, and
because with all the changes coming down
in my life right now, I've
felt well -- desperate. So, I am baffled
by your reaction.
I will not accept that every women's dark nature is THATThe core shadow would be different for every phase of life, which is what
element. I think most women possess aspects of a bitch nature in them but I
don't think that is their core shadow.
I keep saying. The shadow of the Virgin is not the same as the shadow of
the Mother or the Crone, but there is an essential phase missing, the rite of
passage which falls between the Mother and the Crone and
which would carry it's own *unique* shadow. As Dan suggests there may be
several aspects of the feminine psyche and three or four are just not enough
to be comprehensive.
.
THAT is what this search is about -- *not* name calling.
All I said is I'm seeing that aspect in *myself* during this very difficult time.
I called myself that, because I am trying to be truthful about my experience.
This is about a very personal
quest but is an issue which appeared
to be of interest to Sharyn
at least and others curious about this
topic as part of depth psychology.
Menopause is a real stage
of life and no one is labeling it as inferior --
it has a shadow aspect and
it must also have a positive aspect as a rite
of passage. I am going
*through* this -- I've been asking for help
because it *is* so difficult
for me -- I've had tremendous changes in
my psyche, in my body, and
have felt at times no hope of ever
reaching equilibrium again.
I am grateful to Sharyn,
Dan, Matt and others who have tried to
help me find the archetype
at the root of these changes,
and who gave me some helpful
suggestions of where to take my search.
I can leave the "B" word behind -- I think we'd *all* like to -- can you?
Besides, like I said...those same women, if they were men, would not beMen also go through mid-life crisis as Dan pointed out. No one has
considered 'bitch' at all. But rather their tendencies would be admired at best
and accepted at worst. But simply because they are women those same
characteristics are labeled in inferior and sexist terms. IMHO.
suggested they don't or that the male shadow is any less dark than the
female shadow unless I've missed something. But I know I haven't
reduced the feminine shadow -- a complex dynamic -- to a singular
word, especially one so offensive! If you think so, then you
really don't know me nor have you heard me at all.
I simply took up Rey's question
and tried to apply it to my own
situation. If it doesn't
interest you, then ignore it as I do threads which
hold no interest for me.
Personally, I am grateful to Rey for his
stumbling into this mess,
because it motivated me to start hoping
again. Someone likened
this phase to the hero's quest --
what a strand of illumination!
I think Sharyn or Dan could
explain all this much better than
I who have rambled on much
too long. If brevity is the essence
of wit, I guess I lack much
these days.
Perhaps I'll end my search
here as it's time for me to move
on anyway. Perhaps
some questions should never be given
voice, but as Henri Michaux
said, "To silence your madman
is to die voiceless."
Well, I've tried to give my madwoman
a voice, a face, a character.
If I've failed, at least I tried.
Linda
nous...@my-deja.com
Jung does refer to Janet. Abaissement du niveau mental
is about a change from "EVERY" emotional state
producing a change in the consciousness.
This is a far cry from "sages" usual overgeneralized
conclusions. In this case he claims that Jung is
saying that it is synonomous with schizophrenia.
Imagine a pressure cooker. Depending upon whats inside
and where the (paths) would give us
countless outcomes.
For example, there are in fact things we could
call a "synchronistic logo therapy" where the
build up of an emotional intensity could "pop into
the consciousness" in a way that relieves our
emotional state.
That is only one example of many that
hopefully provides a clear illustration that
contradicts "sages" confusion of taking observations
out of context.
Rey
'uhane
and Assyrian myths. As synchronicity would have it, I almost
bought a book today about various goddess myths starting with
the Sumerian ones and continuing on to modern age Mary cults.
The book was written by a woman named Baring and another author
I've forgotten his name. I saw Hillman was quoted often and had
written a recommendation for the book. There was quite an extensive
passage on Medusa and her connection with Athena (who Sharyn had
suggested). There was quite a lot of information about Medusa which
I had never been aware of before, so yes, I think she bears
further study as well as the possibilities you mentioned.
Thanks again -- Linda
In article <19990605165804...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
JJubala
>From my knowledge of Nordic mythology I would say there is nothing comparable
>to what has been described in this thread. The Frost Giants perhaps, but
>it is
>a vague connection.
So true. The Nordic myths (which I know best) are very different from the reast
of the mythologies. Not only are there no so-called *bitches*, the gods and
goddesses seem to love each other so much. And Ragnarok. These are the only
gods and goddesses who die.
I love the Nordic myths.
JungLdy
>reflect an aspect of what we're searching for in this archetype.
I can accept this lock, stock and barrel. What I OBJECTED to was the assertion
that the bitch archetype was THE shadow of women.
I don't care how much I face a bitch in the future ( I was raised by the
biggest one of all...) I will not accept that every women's dark nature is THAT
element. I think most women possess aspects of a bitch nature in them but I
don't think that is their core shadow.
Besides, like I said...those same women, if they were men, would not be
Polymatt
I'm glad to have found a fellow appreciator of Nordic myths. Of all of
mythology, theirs seem to be the most fascinating. When reading the myths in as
close to a chronological order as you can, it seems as though there is almost a
preconceived plot to which the myths semi-knowingly adhere.
I didn't realise that Ragnarok was the ownly instance in which Gods were known
to die. I have always been amazed that effectively, the Norse myths were
allowing good ( Odin ) to be destroyed by evil ( Loki ).
Nice to hear from you, and glad to have found this out about you,
Matt
nous...@my-deja.com
Not all men think of "bitch" as mentally pointing
toward a woman.
I've been called a "bitch" (besides being called such
names like bastard"). This term for me is meant to
describe a "tormenting situation" for the reciever
of such "gift". One of the life threatenning calls
that helped me figure out who it was left the message
"bitch" (from jargon of a gang sheep).
In war, the "heros quest" sometimes ended with men
killing the leaders. Even in the Vietnam war there
were soldiers who ended up fraggin others who were
"a bitch" usually involving an officer or non commissioned
officer leading their men into dangerous situations.
Mutinies, rebellions, revolutions, and so on...
I feel the way to change the emphasis of this connection
to woman would be to "get the topic into the right hands"
by doing exactly what you guys are doing right here
on this NG. If the professionals were to have enough
fuel, admittedly the populus consensus would automatically
play on the old stigma but the more educated the more
that would distintegrate it.
So, I am asking for fuel more compiled and bounded
research that can be presented to a Jungian Association
through their authoritative sources (and they are
approachable). I have not copied and pasted the text
on this subject and suspect that it can be reassembled.
But I am praying for yes information about the relationship
of "the bitch archetype" to women, but moreso and
emphasis of this "buckler" to men (sometimes through
a hero quest which disregards the "others" and
also the "situation".) I know this is no easy task.
But in my heart I feel that it is not only marketable,
but helpful to many and society at large.
Rey
In article <19990606031405...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
JungLdy
>fuel, admittedly the populus consensus would automatically
>play on the old stigma but the more educated the more
>that would distintegrate it.
>
Rey,
I agree. I too want more, not less, information on the bitch archetype. That
is the reason behind the twenty questions (ok, 120) I've asked. And since I'm
admittedly a member of the 'populus consensus' who wishes to move past the 'old
stigma' and would LOVE for the 'professionals' to educate me on the hows, whats
and whys...I asked for the clarification.
Like I posed to Sharon concerning Elenor Roosevelt's quote about inferiority,
words can only make one feel a certain way if they ALLOW or CHOOSE for them to
do so.
For me, the clarification of bitch would mean the specifics involved in what
the archetype entails. Its not enough for ME to receive an example. Rather I
want to know WHAT about the examples deems he/she/it to be 'a bitch archetype.'
Websters is no help in clarifying this as I found the following:
bitch goddess (noun)
First appeared 1906
: SUCCESS; especially : material or worldly success
and then under the term 'bitch' I found as a noun:
bitch [1] (noun)
[Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce]
First appeared before 12th Century
1 : the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2 a : a lewd or immoral woman
b : a malicious, spiteful, or domineering woman -- sometimes used as a
generalized term of abuse
3 : something that is highly objectionable or unpleasant
4 : COMPLAINT
and I also found under verb:
bitch [2]
verb transitive
First appeared 1823
1 : SPOIL, BOTCH <I must have ~ed up my life --Mavis Gallant>
2 : CHEAT, DOUBLECROSS
3 : to complain of or about
verb intransitive
: COMPLAIN
lastly under bitch was 'son of a bitch' described as:
son of a bitch (noun), plural sons of bitch*es
First appeared 1671
: BASTARD 3 -- sometimes considered vulgar -- sometimes used interjectionally
to express surprise or disappointment
My point in posting the above is to try to decipher and understand which
elements of these, if any, do we consider 'bitch archetype.' And, what as a
collective do we feel is the subjective and objective nature in relation to
women's shadow in particular and human shadow in general?
Lastly, I've done my bout with the term bitch. If it means being a woman who
knows what she wants and how to get it, so be it, I guess that's me. If it
means degrading and using others in the process...that's not me. If it means
being snippy and mean at certain times of the month, I guess that's me. But,
if accepting this archetype as part of my shadow vs. part of my entire being
means I am bound by my gender and therefore handicapped in the eyes of
others...forget it. I choose not to see it that way...
Denise
nous...@my-deja.com
OK. I remember in school were each one of us would
look at somebody elses work. Maybe if we did that
here everything would be covered. We each would pick
someone (like A "christmas grab bag") we copy and
paste the text.
Then which ever one of YOU GUYS that meet professionals
at the seminars would turn in the research after some
editing.
I think the title is catchy enough and quite controversial
and the reality is that they have to think also in
terms of "market." This subject I believe has those
ingredients and more.
Speeches are a bit different than books but it is
an ongoing process. The easier it is made for
"the professional" the easier it becomes to implement
it. And that is how a lot of change is made. Look
how many times "amatuers" helped professionals in
many fields of discipline...
I enjoy reading these posts and really and truly
amazed about the research being pulled upon. Very
illuminating.
Rey
In article <19990606180940...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
Dan Bollinger
'uhane, Moving will bring out the b**** in anyone, especially me! I agree that discovering a powerful, full-force example of any archetype is valuable. It is easier to see the attributes when they are exagerrated, and it also becomes a milestone for the 100% mark. Once you have that, then its just a matter of where on the scale are you?
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <3759EAFD...@aloha.net>...
Dan Bollinger
Denise, Definitely not THE shadow for women. At most it can only be half (there's always a passive, polarized shadow pair to balance out the active side of the shadow). And, it is quite likely much less. Remember the Queen/Warrior/Magician/Lover structure I mentioned? If The Bitch is the acting out shadow for the Queen (Moore calls this The Tyrant), then it is just 1/8th of the female shadow. This fits for me.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
JungLdy <jun...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990606031405...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...
> >yet it does
> >reflect an aspect of what we're searching for in this archetype.
>
Dan Bollinger
Denise, Be careful going to Webster for information, it is a collection of "common usage" and the definitions change with the editions to match society. It likely does not match a collective unconscious definition. The one word which struct me as being the most accurate in all those definitions is this: "domineering". Putting other people down is a way to dominate them and have a false sense of superiority, this is done to cover up a feeling of inferiority. This is most definitely a shadow at work. There is a big difference between being a leader and being self-serving. To put this in perspective, what we are doing is cracking the door open on the psyche of women. This is important work. I think it was the Jungian Robert Moore who said that the great strides being made in Jungian thought isn't with the professors and researchers at Universities, but the lay-people who are interested in Jung.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
JungLdy <jun...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990606180940...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
Dan Bollinger
'uhane, Dunno about the Greek mythologists, except that there seems to be a lot of female characters. I remember seeing "family trees" of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, and there were as many men as women, so I'd have to wonder about "being written by men."
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <7jbq42$ck4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Dan, this is fascinating -- but I should have been more specific.
> I read that males were responsible for the myth-making in Greek
> society, and I guess I've been searching for a Greek goddess to
> fit this "menopausal" archetypal "bitch". Still, even though
> what you say may well be true, why do we still hear no mention
> of an archetype which goes along with this phase of life? Was
> it a forbidden topic? Certainly it was a rite of passage which
> must have been recognized in some way by older cultures just as
> the onset of menstruation was acknowledged in many of these
> same cultures.
>
> Lane says this will send me to the archives to do research,
> and I've only until the 15th, but something for me to contemplate
> in the northern woods, eh?
>
> Thanks for your help & input. Linda
>
> In article <
01beaf4b$f88498c0$31d9f8cc@dan-s>,
> "Dan Bollinger" <d...@claycritters.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 'uhane, Hope you get this before your move! First, you mention that
> "the
> > original myth-making
> > were done by the males of any culture." I read a book by a
> mythologist
> > who disagrees with you. The author said that myths, stories and
> fables,
> > were made equally by men and women to tell to the children. 50/50.
> Over
> > the past two-hundred years or so, with men leaving the home for the
> > workplace, women began taking on more and more of the child-rearing,
> and
> > that the myths we are left with are the ones passed down to us by our
> > mothers and are decidedly feminine. Try it, make a list of all the
> > children's stories you know well enough to tell and then look at the
> title
> > or the sex of the protagonist. I did this with a small group once
> and the
> > ratio was something like 3:1 in favor of women/girls.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
Dan Bollinger
Linda, I don't like it, first, it's doesn't describe a stage of life, second, its a shadow. Now, maybe Medusa is the shadow of the archetype you are looking for. Somewhere, I've seen this. I'm going to call a therapist I know in Detroit, she had a book which showed 12 stages in the life of women, Mother being just one of them. Maybe it will help!
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <37597A9E...@aloha.net>...
> Sharyn and all:
>
> What do you think about Medusa as the archetype I am searching for?
>
> Linda
>
>
Dan Bollinger
Linda, Native Americans didn't allow women who were "on their moon" (menstrating) to participate in the ritual Sun Dance. This wasn't because the topic was taboo, or that they were un-clean, but because they were "In their Power." They went to a separate location and did other rituals to support the rest of the tribes Sun Dance. They seemed to have a respect for the natural cycles of life and birth. I'll ask a buddy of mine who happens to be a History professor and a Cherokee what the stories were for menopausal women. Also, in just a few months, the U. is hiring a Choctaw woman, too. I'll ask her about it too. This will be interesting. If I find out anything, I'll start a new thread. Aloha, and bon Voyage!
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <7jbq42$ck4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Dan, this is fascinating -- but I should have been more specific.
> I read that males were responsible for the myth-making in Greek
> society, and I guess I've been searching for a Greek goddess to
> fit this "menopausal" archetypal "bitch". Still, even though
> what you say may well be true, why do we still hear no mention
> of an archetype which goes along with this phase of life? Was
> it a forbidden topic? Certainly it was a rite of passage which
> must have been recognized in some way by older cultures just as
> the onset of menstruation was acknowledged in many of these
> same cultures.
>
> Lane says this will send me to the archives to do research,
> and I've only until the 15th, but something for me to contemplate
> in the northern woods, eh?
>
> Thanks for your help & input. Linda
>
> In article <
01beaf4b$f88498c0$31d9f8cc@dan-s>,
> "Dan Bollinger" <d...@claycritters.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 'uhane, Hope you get this before your move! First, you mention that
> "the
> > original myth-making
> > were done by the males of any culture." I read a book by a
> mythologist
> > who disagrees with you. The author said that myths, stories and
> fables,
> > were made equally by men and women to tell to the children. 50/50.
> Over
> > the past two-hundred years or so, with men leaving the home for the
> > workplace, women began taking on more and more of the child-rearing,
> and
> > that the myths we are left with are the ones passed down to us by our
> > mothers and are decidedly feminine. Try it, make a list of all the
> > children's stories you know well enough to tell and then look at the
> title
> > or the sex of the protagonist. I did this with a small group once
> and the
> > ratio was something like 3:1 in favor of women/girls.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan Bollinger
> > Wabash Men's Council
> >
'uhane
Matt described, and the menopausal phase can make one feel that way,
especially when you're not acting yourself and all around you seem to
think you're some kind of "monster". Also, when Medusa was slain,
her blood did seem to have regenerative power to heal and also gave
birth to Pegasus, so it certainly seems possible for the shadow side.
Sharyn mentioned Athena (as perhaps the solar or positive side) but
wasn't she, like Artemis, a virgin?
Thanks for going to so much effort -- I've also been reading Nor Hall's
excellent book, The Moon and the Virgin which has some interesting stuff
about women and archetypes, though nothing specific for what I'm searching
for. Then there's "The Wise Wound" by Penelope Shuttle and Peter Redgrove
who mention that during the menopausal phase, if the woman has never been
reconciled with the "other" which surfaces during menstruation, then she may
have struggles with the "animus" during this latter phase of life. This seems
plausible too, doesn't it?
Anyway, I'd be more than fascinated to hear what your Choctaw acquaintance
has to say. If it's the 15th or after, if you could email me with the information, I'm
leaving my computer with a relative and can pick up email from afar -- I'd really
apprecaite it.
Mahalo (Thank you so much) for all your help.
Aloha, Linda
Dan Bollinger wrote:
Linda, I don't like it, first, it's doesn't describe a stage of life, second, its a shadow. Now, maybe Medusa is the shadow of the archetype you are looking for. Somewhere, I've seen this. I'm going to call a therapist I know in Detroit, she had a book which showed 12 stages in the life of women, Mother being just one of them. Maybe it will help!
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
'uhane <due...@aloha.net> wrote in article <37597A9E...@aloha.net>...
JungLdy
I think 1/8 is a good measure. I can live with that.
As far as using Websters as a source, I was using it as more of an example of
ambiguity in my post rather than an actual source for quoting definition.
Trying to make the point that the term 'bitch' and certainly when applied to
archetype could use some clarification and greater definition.
I know, I know, its annoying as all hell but I'm the type that cant' just know
the who I NEED to know the why and why too.
Yeah, yeah...I almost studied to be a journalist. They didn't make enough
money. ;)
Denise
Dan Bollinger
LOL, Must be rough having to know everything. <g> Then again, I'm not a know-it-all either. <a-hem>
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
JungLdy <jun...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990607173032...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
JungLdy
didn't pursue journalism, my missing editing skills. ;)
I really have been fascinated with this topic. Any topic that brings out new
posters and more diverse opinion is welcomed be me.
I think the subject is so intensely rich and varied that to concentrate only on
the objective nature of it is a mistake. Hence my need to question the
subjective nature.
Denise
sweet...@my-deja.com
due...@aloha.net wrote:
>
I like
> his [Dan's] description of the mid life crisis in men as becoming
"esty" and in
> women as becoming "testy" --
I've been following this thread with some interest, being a woman who
is just entering menopause, and this remark by Dan (sorry, couldn't
find the original to post to) reminds me of Jung's description of the
animus, which has since been redefined by some as the "negative animus"
- the *unconscious* expression of a woman's masculine aspects, which
manifest in petty and obnoxious ways and are highly irritating to men -
thus earning the label Bitch. But the animus can also express itself
consciously, as courage, strength, intellectual inspiration,
creativity, and such. This is the archetype that needs naming, I
think. Something like Wisewoman maybe. And maybe Bitch could be
considered its shadow? I do think this issue is timely, with all the
babyboomer women approaching menopause and perhaps not ready to
identify with the Crone archetype.
Phyllis
Lane McCullough
Shrew" by Shakespear. "Kate" has an interesting struggle between the
"Bitch" and "Queen" archetypes. The dynamic is fueled by Petruchio's own
struggle between his "Pirate" and "King" archetypes. I love this play.
Wonderful tension between the opposites.
Lane
sweet...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7jjpvc$tll$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Dan Bollinger
on the demographics of the baby boomers, there were more menopausal women
on the planet than in any year in history! It is now starting to slowly
decline. For men, we have another archetype to draw on. After the
mid-life crisis we become Elders before we become Wise Old Men. Elders are
involved with nurturing community or others as Mentors, it's the "esty"
part that Jed Diamond refers to. But still, this isn't the transitional,
menopausal archetype that I think 'uhane was asking for.
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
sweet...@my-deja.com wrote in article <7jjpvc$tll$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Sharyn C
'uhane wrote in message <37597A9E...@aloha.net>...
>Sharyn and all:
>
>What do you think about Medusa as the archetype I am searching for?
>
>Linda
>
Dear Linda:
Forgive me for taking so long to respond. I hope you haven't left yet. At
any rate, it would seem to me that Medusa is too dark of an image to be a
good one for an image of the archetype you're trying to see. In other,
words, I think Medusa is more an image of just the dark side, or too
one-sided, and just the "Bitch". For instance Hera was a little more
balanced, as she could be a bitch and then could also do some good. What
comes to mind is that we can never find a perfect image for the whole
archetype, but rather images that express it somewhat. Therefore, you may
have to look at quite a few myths around the world to find one that fits
more perfectly than most. I'm not an expert on myth either, but this is a
fascinating exploration and worth the research.
One mythological character that comes to mind is "Changing Woman" in the
Navajo tradition, and she actually has similarities to Athena. Have you
read any stories about her? See "Changing Woman and Her Sisters", by Sheila
Moon. In it she says, "Her gifts to people are rites and ceremonies. She
is kind, gives songs, creates the horse, decrees fertility and sterility.
Her presence at an assembly of the gods is deeply respected." (Pg. 159).
She goes on to say that she is independent and lives by the ocean
(unconscious) and is possibly similar to the Chinese goddess Kwan Yin as she
embodies compassion and is also a creator goddess. Anyway, I like her for
the image of the potent and creative woman in her 50's and 60's, and she's
definitely not like a Crone figure.
Good Luck,
Sharyn
Dan Bollinger
for the Menopausal Woman is a move away from Demeter, the fecund mother.
In a way, a menopausal archetype is like a feminine trickster. It's as if
she is saying, "Now that you've identifyied with making babies, I'm going
to take it away from you." The Woodland Native Americans have for their
trickster archetype the Great Hare. Perhaps there is something here. "Now
you can make babies like rabbits, and now you can't. How are you going to
handle that?"
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Sharyn C <sha...@ris.net> wrote in article
<92895981...@news.remarQ.com>...
Sharyn C
Dan Bollinger wrote in message <01beb4ce$94470ea0$37d9f8cc@dan-s>...
>Shayrn, I agree with you about Medusa. We could say that the archetype
>for the Menopausal Woman is a move away from Demeter, the fecund mother.
>In a way, a menopausal archetype is like a feminine trickster. It's as if
>she is saying, "Now that you've identifyied with making babies, I'm going
>to take it away from you." The Woodland Native Americans have for their
>trickster archetype the Great Hare. Perhaps there is something here. "Now
>you can make babies like rabbits, and now you can't. How are you going to
>handle that?"
>--
>
>Dan Bollinger
>Wabash Men's Council
>http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Dan:
I agree, and wondered if you saw this post that stuck in another thread?
"There's actually a goddess in the Navajo culture called
Snapping Vagina, such a catchy name, who would definitely be in the league
with Medusa, but too much of the evil or bitch side of the feminine and thus
incomplete, too one-sided, to fit between the mother and the crone. This is
information I'm sure you'll all be glad to receive."
Honest to Goddess, there's such a character in the Navajo pantheon!
Sharyn
Dan Bollinger
denied which becomes a shadow. <g>
--
Dan Bollinger
Wabash Men's Council
http://www.themenscenter.com/wabashmen
Sharyn C <sha...@ris.net> wrote in article
<92922742...@news.remarQ.com>...