Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-18-2013, 09:32 AM

Someone in the 1840's played the same game with very interesting results! If we called certain documents the Christian Manifesto? Romeo and Juliet got rewritten as West Side Story....

Quote:

The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch01.htm

jdboy · 05-18-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Maybe the thesis is God and the antithesis is man..

we are made in his image? God Devil good and evil

Clivedurdle · 05-18-2013, 04:01 PM

Just wondering why this idea took off - maybe it was because it was for the time allegedly intellectually satisfying, as well as conquering death you could put together god and humans and make a new heaven and earth. As in all the best film scripts, there are a myriad loose ends! But no human grit in the pearl anywhere.

Onias · 05-19-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Someone in the 1840's played the same game with very interesting results! If we called certain documents the Christian Manifesto? Romeo and Juliet got rewritten as West Side Story....

Quote:

The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch01.htm

Quote:

Romeo and Juliet got rewritten as West Side Story....

Could the story of Judas the Galilean have been inversely rewritten as the story of Jesus Christ?

Chili · 05-20-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

God, devil........?

God, human, man, as in 'be God' yourself and "who am I" as human will be no more.

For simplicity sake let me say that the prefix hu- identifies man as earthly (from humi- or humus) to make man opposite to earthly without the human condition attached, that itself has nothing to do with good and bad until religion added the concept evil to bad, wherein so the 'bar is raised' to make 'upright' known under the concept God inside the 'infinite good' that makes higher known above high and greater better than great.

In the thesis statement God is presented as transient, begging to be transcended by the human condition while searching for purpose in life while in the absence of meaning to find only himself in the origin of all his endeavors, that later becomes his good works to remain in his presence of God now as Lord God himself.

Accordingly, I see the concept God as the grit that is planted in the mind of humans for them to surmount and understand by transcending their own gifts as given to each.

The solution to the question "who am I" now is equal to saying that "to be is not to be" wherein I am no longer with purpose in life for my own good.

Horatio Parker · 05-20-2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

God, devil........?

Quote:

... the attributes of Christ (consubstantiality with the Father, co-eternity, filiation, parthenogenesis, crucifixion, Lamb sacrificed between opposites, One divided into Many, etc.) undoubtedly mark him out as an embodiment of the self, looked at from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype. The other half appears in the Antichrist. The latter is just as much a manifestation of the self, except that he consists of its dark aspect. Both are Christian symbols, and they have the same meaning as the image of the Saviour crucified between two thieves. This great symbol tells us that the progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to an ever more menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing less than a crucifixion of the ego, its agonizing suspension between irreconcilable opposites. AION 44

Naturally there can be no question of a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. AION 45

(ind’n) It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts, even though the Christian image of the self – Christ – lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it. AION 45

Carl Jung

The important thing to understand is that without suffering of some kind there is no awareness. In a universe where ones ie the ego's every need is immediately fulfilled, there is no reflection, no awareness, hence no self, no individuation.

mountainman · 05-20-2013, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

God, devil........?

"daimon" [δαίμων] ?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili · 05-21-2013, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

God, devil........?

"daimon" [δαίμων] ?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

God -human-man, with faith being the tool to convert human to evil [all this in a relative world] to set man free as Lord God himself.

Religion is a game that we play, and if we play by the rules Peter becomes satan (from protagonist to antagonist by way of conversion) to be the last and final apostle to deny the human condition in effort to set the inner man free without a trace left behind to keep wolves at a distance from him.

Chili · 05-21-2013, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

God, devil........?

Quote:

... the attributes of Christ (consubstantiality with the Father, co-eternity, filiation, parthenogenesis, crucifixion, Lamb sacrificed between opposites, One divided into Many, etc.) undoubtedly mark him out as an embodiment of the self, looked at from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype. The other half appears in the Antichrist. The latter is just as much a manifestation of the self, except that he consists of its dark aspect. Both are Christian symbols, and they have the same meaning as the image of the Saviour crucified between two thieves. This great symbol tells us that the progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to an ever more menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing less than a crucifixion of the ego, its agonizing suspension between irreconcilable opposites. AION 44

Naturally there can be no question of a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. AION 45

(ind’n) It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts, even though the Christian image of the self – Christ – lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it. AION 45

Carl Jung

The important thing to understand is that without suffering of some kind there is no awareness. In a universe where ones ie the ego's every need is immediately fulfilled, there is no reflection, no awareness, hence no self, no individuation.

I'd be careful with Jung because consubstantial is not transubstantial (thru the son to the father), co- eternal reduces God to eternal from infinite, parthenogenisis is not parthenocarpic, and the Lamb of God was not crucified; none of which can be seen from a psychological angle but is neologic by induction and that is just a notch or two above him.

He is totally wrong in placing Christ opposite to anti-christ as its own flip-side archetypal opposite similar to pleasure and pain, good and bad, or good and evil that is relative with religion-specific intent, wherein good can be bad in two different mythologies that so also make bad as good in these opposites as well.

Then of course he is wrong to call them irreconcilable to conclude that this would create 'unconsciousness' wherein he denies Ascension that is followed by Assumption and subsequent Coronation to convert reason into Pure Reason wherein shadows are no longer seen as by Cave dwellers like him.

Having said this, he may be correct by pointing at the Christian tradition to say what he does, but that does not make it right just the same.

Let me add here that parthenocarpic is about renewal of life instead of creating new life the parthenogenesis way.

Horatio Parker · 05-21-2013, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

The important thing to understand is that without suffering of some kind there is no awareness. In a universe where ones ie the ego's every need is immediately fulfilled, there is no reflection, no awareness, hence no self, no individuation.

I'd be careful with Jung because consubstantial is not transubstantial (thru the son to the father), co- eternal reduces God to eternal from infinite, parthenogenisis is not parthenocarpic, and the Lamb of God was not crucified; none of which can be seen from a psychological angle but is neologic by induction and that is just a notch or two above him.

He is totally wrong in placing Christ opposite to anti-christ as its own flip-side archetypal opposite similar to pleasure and pain, good and bad, or good and evil that is relative with religion-specific intent, wherein good can be bad in two different mythologies that so also make bad as good in these opposites as well.

Then of course he is wrong to call them irreconcilable to conclude that this would create 'unconsciousness' wherein he denies Ascension that is followed by Assumption and subsequent Coronation to convert reason into Pure Reason wherein shadows are no longer seen as by Cave dwellers like him.

Having said this, he may be correct by pointing at the Christian tradition to say what he does, but that does not make it right just the same.

Let me add here that parthenocarpic is about renewal of life instead of creating new life the parthenogenesis way.

Jung isn't making metaphysical pronouncements; his argument is psychological. He's discussing the idea of God and Jesus, and their role in the Christian psyche, not their empirical existence. It's not clear to me that you've made that distinction.

In the stories, the Shadow, or antichrist is always evil, but in the psyche this isn't so; however it's perceived as such by the conscious as the Shadow is feared. Its fear of the unknown more than evil.

In the present state of affairs they are indeed irreconcilable, seems to me.

I'm not familiar with his views on the Ascension or the Assumption, but I'd be surprised if he "denies" it. The psyche is dynamic, not static, things come into and go out of consciousness etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2013, 04:01 PM	#13
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Just wondering why this idea took off - maybe it was because it was for the time allegedly intellectually satisfying, as well as conquering death you could put together god and humans and make a new heaven and earth. As in all the best film scripts, there are a myriad loose ends! But no human grit in the pearl anywhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.