Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2006, 08:58 AM

http://dali.urvas.lt/page24.html

Quote:

By far the most popular of all Dali’s religious works is without a doubt his Christ of Saint John of the Cross, whose figure dominates the Bay of Port Lligat. The painting was inspired by a drawing, preserved in the Convent of the Incarnation in Avila, Spain, and done by Saint John of the Cross himself after he had seen this vision of Christ during ecstasy. The people beside the boat are derived from a picture by Le Nain and from drawing by Velázquez for The Surrender of Breda. At the bottom of his studies for the Christ, Dali wrote: "In the first place, in 1950, I had a ‘cosmic dream’ in which I saw this image in color

Strange how a mythical mystic Christ "I had a cosmic dream" - reminiscent of Paul - is a major religious work.

As I see it, a mythical christ, saviour of the universe, has always been there to be found as the basis of this religion - seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you!

Quote:

One day during the years when Fray John of the Cross was chaplain at the monastery of the Incarnation in Avila, probably between 1574 and 1577, he was praying in a loft overlooking the sanctuary. Suddenly he received a vision. Taking a pen he sketched on a small piece of paper what he had beheld.
The sketch is of Christ crucified, hanging in space, turned toward his people, and seen from a new perspective. The cross is erect. The body, lifeless and contorted, with the head bent over, hangs forward so that the arms are held only by the nails. Christ is seen from above, from the view of the Father. He is more worm than man, weighed down by the sins of human beings, leaning toward the world for which he died. John, who was to write so many cautions against visions and images, later gave the pen sketch to one of his devout penitents at the Incarnation, Ana Mar�*a de Jesús

http://www.carmelite.com/saints/john/b3h.shtml

Xianity has a very strong mystical tradition - maybe that is the origial tradition and the historicisers have lost the plot!

"Without a vision the people perish" was a key text in my evangelical days - maybe it always has been a visionary mystical alchemic religion!

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2006, 12:10 PM

I understand the mythical Jesus tradition to be the original Christianity, and there seems to be a missing name in the Holy canon of Mjers - CG Jung!

http://www.gnosis.org/jung_alchemy.htm

Quote:

C. G. Jung and the Alchemical Renewal

by Stephan A. Hoeller

The lovely little town of Knittlingen, near the Black Forrest in West Germany, is noted far-and-wide as the original residence of the famed Dr. Johannes Faustus. A plaque in the small but exquisite museum devoted to the facts and legends concerning Dr. Faust tells us that, although alchemy has often been considered a pseudo-science based on the pretense that gold could be made from other metals, it is now known that, in reality, it was a spiritual art having as its aim the psychological transformation of the alchemist himself. This public statement, viewed daily by large numbers of visitors, demonstrates most impressively the rehabilitated image alchemy has acquired in recent decades. This positive change is due in large measure to the work of one remarkable man: Carl Gustav Jung.

When Jung published his first major work on alchemy at the end of World War II, most reference books described this discipline as nothing more than a fraudulent and inefficient forerunner of modern chemistry. Today, more than twenty-five years after Jung's death, alchemy is once again a respected subject of both academic and popular interest, and alchemical terminology is used with great frequency in textbooks of depth-psychology and other disciplines. It may be said without exaggeration that the contemporary status of alchemy owes its very existence to the psychological wizard of Küsnacht. Take away the monumental contribution of C.G. Jung, and most modern research concerning this fascinating subject falls like a house of cards; to speak of alchemy in our age and not mention him could be likened to discoursing on Occultism without noting the importance of Helena P. Blavatsky, or discussing religious studies in contemporary American universities without paying homage to Mircea Eliade.

Jung's "first love" among esoteric systems was Gnosticism. From the earliest days of his scientific career until the time of his death, his dedication to the subject of Gnosticism was relentless. As early as August, 1912, Jung intimated in a letter to Freud that he had an intuition that the essentially feminine-toned archaic wisdom of the Gnostics, symbolically called Sophia, was destined to re-enter modern Western culture by way of depth-psychology. Subsequently, he stated to Barbara Hannah that when he discovered the writings of the ancient Gnostics, "I felt as if I had at last found a circle of friends who understood me."

The circle of ancient friends was a fragile one, however. Very little reliable, first-hand information was available to Jung within which he could have found the world and spirit of such past Gnostic luminaries as Valentinus, Basilides, and others. The fragmentary, and possibly mendacious, accounts of Gnostic teachings and practices appearing in the works of such heresy-hunting church fathers as Irenaeus and Hippolytus were a far cry from the wealth of archetypal lore available to us today in the Nag Hammadi collection. Of primary sources, the remarkable Pistis Sophia was one of very few available to Jung in translation, and his appreciation of this work was so great that he made a special effort to seek out the translator, the then aged and impecunious George R. S. Mead, in London to convey to him his great gratitude.1 Jung continued to explore Gnostic lore with great diligence, and his own personal matrix of inner experience became so affinitized to Gnostic imagery that he wrote the only published document of his great transformational crisis, The Seven Sermons to the Dead, using purely Gnostic terminology and mythologems of the system of Basilides.2

If we are seriously to dent the fantastic mythology of hjers we have to look carefully and seriously at Jung.

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/sermon0.htm

Quote:

The Seven Sermons to the Dead was written by Carl Gustav Jung between December 15, 1916 and February 16, 1917 under the pseudonym "Basilides of Alexandria". Jung chose the name of a gnostic writer who taught in Alexandria around A.D. 125-140. It was a custom for authors of spiritually oriented material to attribute the authorship to someone they felt to be their superior on the subject.
Jung distributed this material to a few of his friends and seemed to publicly reject the label of "gnostic". It can be argued, though, that Jung's model of human psychology is but a 20th century gnosticism. As with everything else, interpret this material symbolically, not literally. Indeed, the very subject of the First Sermon warns us of the same.

Jung creates some unique images, such as "mother heaven" and "father earth" along with his attempt to warn us against giving ourselves over to one archetype. They are there for us to use on our path of individuation, not to be worshipped as THE god / goddess as the non-gnostic Christians have done (the "dead").

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2006, 12:45 PM

Of course, the real reason MJers are not taken seriously is because of this wonderful mix of myth, magic, gnosis, the occult and alchemy, which has taken off in all the new agey stuff of today and because heresies - until recently - were violently suppressed - starting with a certain version of gnosticism in Southern France!

Quote:

The Medieval Inquisitions were in response to growing mass heretical movements, in particular the Cathars first noted in the 1140s and the Waldensians starting around 1170. Heretical individuals, for example Peter of Bruis, had always been a challenge for the Church. However, the Cathars were the first mass heretical organization that posed a serious threat to both the authority of the Church and the accepted teachings of Christianity. To counter the threat of heresy the church used the weapon of inquisition.

History

All medieval inquisitions were decentralized. Authority rested with local officials based on guidelines from the Pope, but there was no central top-down authority running the inquisitions, as would be the case in post-medieval inquisitions. Thus there were many different types of inquisitions depending on the location and methods; historians have generally classified them into the episcopal inquisition and the papal inquisition.
The first medieval inquisition, the episcopal inquisition, was established in the year 1184 by a papal bull entitled "Ad abolendam," "For the purpose of doing away with." The inquisition was in response to the growing Catharist heresy in southern France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

No Robots · 01-23-2006, 01:12 PM

The visions of St. John of the Cross, Dali and Jung are powerful and entrancing. You have done well to bring them together in presenting a gnostic Christianity. My question is: why does all this require the denial of the man Christ?

Your contention seems typical of the whole mythicist approach: take some later reflection on Christ and anachronistically reframe it as original. It's like insisting that one of Dali's watches is the real model for working timepieces. Dali's depictions of watches do have something to say about time, and his portrayals of Christ do have something to say about Christ. The danger comes when we assume that the portrayal is the thing itself. Ancient gnosticism came to grief on the same grounds. It is mankind's nature to constantly confuse things with their representations. If you are able to keep the distinction clear, however, then you can enjoy the representations in relation to their content, rather than as substitutes for it.

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

some later reflection on Christ and anachronistically reframe it as original

Please show me why gnosticism is later and that it is anachronistic to reframe it as the original.

Quote:

The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism; yet others think it derives from Jesus, and is a development of his teaching that is arguably as valid as the orthodox one. Others still regard Gnosticism as a religious tradition in itself, the manifestation in related "systems" of a perennial philosophy of which, in some sense, more orthodox religious traditions are the recurring contraries. Most historians, however, agree that a significant influence in the mystical interpretations were influenced by Buddhism. In the end, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to confidently identify a clear origin for Gnosticism, due in part to its commonly syncretistic nature, and due also to the fluid (some might say "confused") relations between religious traditions in antiquity and, indeed, throughout history. Despite these uncertainties, some historical notions concerning gnosticism are widely accepted.
Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Other scholars contend that Gnosticism emerged in the late first and early second centuries C.E., after the key beliefs and writings of orthodox Christianity were already well-established; this is, on the whole, the less-prevalent view, as is made clear in Bentley Layton's introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures, a translation of the texts found at Nag Hammadi.
Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed. For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Beware of orthodox propaganda and Inquisitions!

No Robots · 01-23-2006, 02:11 PM

Okay, let's slow down. What I said was that the approach of mythicism is inherently anachronistic. I said nothing about the chronology of ancient Gnosticism. I have no problem with the Wikipedia piece on Gnosticism that you quote. What I said about Gnosticism was that it ultimately ran afoul when it confused its speculative representations with the facts. For example, some Gnostics, when trying to resolve the paradox of flesh and spirit, mandated sexual license; others enforced rigid ascetism. In both cases we have the reification of a spiritual principle.

The connection between mythicism and the decadent forms of ancient Gnosticism is that they both confuse principles with their representations. With Gnosticism, this was a falling away from an originally well-founded programme of spiritual enlightenment. With mythicism, the error is present from the outset. Gnosticism went from gold to dross: mythicism starts with dross and goes nowhere.

youngalexander · 01-23-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Gnosticism went from gold to dross: mythicism starts with dross and goes nowhere.

Could that be because there is nowhere to go?

Clive mate - wot you on about! I am very keen on Dali and have been to Cadaques and seen 'the Rock'. Place was full of bloody tourists. I shall be passing by Knittlingen on the A8 on 13th May heading for Aachen. A detour.....
Doubtful.

Gnosticism, Jung, Joe Campbell, 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces', it's all beginning to make sense......:angel:

Clivedurdle · 01-24-2006, 02:21 AM

It is quite possible - but difficult - to look at this symbolism, mythical, alchemic stuff - in its own right.

It feels as if religion - especially certain interpretations of certain ancient texts found in certain very widely available translations - is given more respect than other occult alchemic texts.

Other threads are discussing sub lunar realms etc.

I think we might get somewhere if we approached the alleged writings of Paul and the many other writings we have from this period on an equal footing, and stop giving the New Testament a false authority because it is part of a very powerful (and sometimes deadly!) tradition.

Jung (and Newton - who also wrote extensively about alchemy) - should not be rejected out of hand as occult - why do we not do this with the New Testament when it has identical themes - what is wine into blood but classic alchemy? Taking what they say at face value, as early attempts, proto science - is very valuable.

There are different views in the NT - Hebrews probaly does have a different place for Christ's sacrifice than Paul - this confusion is to be expected and enjoyed!

I find it fascinating when these mythical alchemic themes are explicitly presented in art - like in Dali, but somehow the significance of that is ignored!

Art historians continually discuss such and suchs representation of a Greek or Roman myth, how come xianity gets away with this fiction that it is not equally mythical?

Why are God's spells thought to be more rational or truthful or better than occult spells?

Clivedurdle · 01-24-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The visions of St. John of the Cross, Dali and Jung are powerful and entrancing. You have done well to bring them together in presenting a gnostic Christianity. My question is: why does all this require the denial of the man Christ?

Your contention seems typical of the whole mythicist approach: take some later reflection on Christ and anachronistically reframe it as original. It's like insisting that one of Dali's watches is the real model for working timepieces. Dali's depictions of watches do have something to say about time, and his portrayals of Christ do have something to say about Christ. The danger comes when we assume that the portrayal is the thing itself. Ancient gnosticism came to grief on the same grounds. It is mankind's nature to constantly confuse things with their representations. If you are able to keep the distinction clear, however, then you can enjoy the representations in relation to their content, rather than as substitutes for it.

As Jung wrote at the end of the second sermon to the dead:

Quote:

At this point the dead caused a great riot, because they were Christians.

The seven sermons is a classic poem, drawing on zen and taoist ideas, using the classic gnostic thought that god and the devil were created together.

Gnosticism has not come to grief at all - it is the basis of various forms of psychology that treat the mind as emergent and therefore likely to have issues of its own - like madness.

It has been argued that Jung was in the middle of a psychotic breakdown during WW1 - arguably the suffering he saw drove him mad - when seven sermons was written. But maybe he did achieve something in his despair.

Like Freke and Gandy's second book, I do see a huge optimism about promoting the mythical Christ - as moving us on from our what is in many ways a current world of the dead where we are fighting each other over what exactly?

HJers have an implicit series of assumptions - accept their view, accept their Christ, go to their heaven.

But if we are seriously to build heaven on earth we need to tackle the good and evil in all of us - and gnosticism and mythology - (what is all this demeaning of myth?) are valuable starting points, as artists keep on pointing out for some strange reason!

No Robots · 01-24-2006, 09:06 AM

Myth is indeed useful, even essential to our understanding of Christ. As Constantin Brunner puts it:

What is utter nonsense, conceived in superstitious terms, such as the Son of the Father and the Virgin, equal to the Father, and the miracles, is in fact the profoundest Truth if understood spiritually; the utterances of superstition regain their Truth when applied to Christ. Thus, what superstition says does not sound like superstition at all when applied to Christ, unless it is put altogether too coarsely.

But Brunner cautions against putting the myth in place of the man:

If there were ever a case in which it were necessary to say that the person takes precedence over the myth, this is it - on account of the spiritual value, and achievement of the person concerned.

01-24-2006, 09:06 AM	#10
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Myth is indeed useful, even essential to our understanding of Christ. As Constantin Brunner puts it: What is utter nonsense, conceived in superstitious terms, such as the Son of the Father and the Virgin, equal to the Father, and the miracles, is in fact the profoundest Truth if understood spiritually; the utterances of superstition regain their Truth when applied to Christ. Thus, what superstition says does not sound like superstition at all when applied to Christ, unless it is put altogether too coarsely. But Brunner cautions against putting the myth in place of the man: If there were ever a case in which it were necessary to say that the person takes precedence over the myth, this is it - on account of the spiritual value, and achievement of the person concerned.

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

01-23-2006, 01:12 PM	#4
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	The visions of St. John of the Cross, Dali and Jung are powerful and entrancing. You have done well to bring them together in presenting a gnostic Christianity. My question is: why does all this require the denial of the man Christ? Your contention seems typical of the whole mythicist approach: take some later reflection on Christ and anachronistically reframe it as original. It's like insisting that one of Dali's watches is the real model for working timepieces. Dali's depictions of watches do have something to say about time, and his portrayals of Christ do have something to say about Christ. The danger comes when we assume that the portrayal is the thing itself. Ancient gnosticism came to grief on the same grounds. It is mankind's nature to constantly confuse things with their representations. If you are able to keep the distinction clear, however, then you can enjoy the representations in relation to their content, rather than as substitutes for it.

01-23-2006, 02:11 PM	#6
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Okay, let's slow down. What I said was that the approach of mythicism is inherently anachronistic. I said nothing about the chronology of ancient Gnosticism. I have no problem with the Wikipedia piece on Gnosticism that you quote. What I said about Gnosticism was that it ultimately ran afoul when it confused its speculative representations with the facts. For example, some Gnostics, when trying to resolve the paradox of flesh and spirit, mandated sexual license; others enforced rigid ascetism. In both cases we have the reification of a spiritual principle. The connection between mythicism and the decadent forms of ancient Gnosticism is that they both confuse principles with their representations. With Gnosticism, this was a falling away from an originally well-founded programme of spiritual enlightenment. With mythicism, the error is present from the outset. Gnosticism went from gold to dross: mythicism starts with dross and goes nowhere.

01-24-2006, 02:21 AM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	It is quite possible - but difficult - to look at this symbolism, mythical, alchemic stuff - in its own right. It feels as if religion - especially certain interpretations of certain ancient texts found in certain very widely available translations - is given more respect than other occult alchemic texts. Other threads are discussing sub lunar realms etc. I think we might get somewhere if we approached the alleged writings of Paul and the many other writings we have from this period on an equal footing, and stop giving the New Testament a false authority because it is part of a very powerful (and sometimes deadly!) tradition. Jung (and Newton - who also wrote extensively about alchemy) - should not be rejected out of hand as occult - why do we not do this with the New Testament when it has identical themes - what is wine into blood but classic alchemy? Taking what they say at face value, as early attempts, proto science - is very valuable. There are different views in the NT - Hebrews probaly does have a different place for Christ's sacrifice than Paul - this confusion is to be expected and enjoyed! I find it fascinating when these mythical alchemic themes are explicitly presented in art - like in Dali, but somehow the significance of that is ignored! Art historians continually discuss such and suchs representation of a Greek or Roman myth, how come xianity gets away with this fiction that it is not equally mythical? Why are God's spells thought to be more rational or truthful or better than occult spells?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.