But dramas involving mothers and fathers are much bigger and older. My persona is tiny by comparison.

If you see a symbol of one of those cosmic sized beings and find yourself arrested by it, it's good to pay attention. — Tate

I agree archetypes are important. It's a good idea to take them to heart when they appear - typically in dreams. Or literature.


I think Kevin and I were talking about another sort of collective consciousness. Not sure. Maybe he can clarify.

If you see a symbol of one of those cosmic sized beings and find yourself arrested by it, it's good to pay attention. — Tate

I put my finger on it: That's the collective UNconscious. Jung's idea.

I agree archetypes are important. It's a good idea to take them to heart when they appear - typically in dreams. Or literature. — ZzzoneiroCosm

They can be detected while you're awake. Wars break out between them. It's bad joo joo.

That's my experience anyway. They aren't two dimensional. They're living aspects of you.

put my finger on it: That's the collective UNconscious. Jung's idea. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right.

They can be detected while you're awake. — Tate

An archetype-infused conception of reality. Sure. The mythic mystique of the Fuhrer. And so on. That's a good point. I've been focused on dreams and literature lately. I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder. :smile:

They aren't two dimensional. They're living aspects of you. — Tate

I think of the archetypes as playing a critical role in the creation of mystique. Various kinds of mystique. The mystique of the mother or of the priest, king, or nation. Yes, very problematic. Again, thanks for the reminder.

Introspective and solitary by nature, I can forget to extrospect.

:cool:

Yes. Usually we talk about 'the war', which refers to the Second World War. Then often the Holocaust is mentioned or implied. We assume that many people on Earth know about those events. Therefore we say it's part of the collective consciousness. Another example is Michael Jackson. We assume that most people know who Michael Jackson is or was.

I'm also talking about archetypes. For example, many people know who Superman is. Or have some vague notion at least. We could say that Superman is an archetype. These days there are many cartoon characters that are recognized by the majority. For example Super Mario and Pikachu by video game company Nintendo.

This is not a theology thread. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You might want to avoid a theological discussion, but I do not see how the text can be read that way without ignoring what is actually said:

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (1:5-6)

First is the claim of the lack of agency. It is not what we do or have done, but what has been done for us. Next is what we are to do, which is, to serve God.

Chapters 1-3: A plea for self-overcoming, self-transcendence — ZzzoneiroCosm

What evidence of this do you see? I see a good deal about repentance, but nothing about self-transcendence. To the contrary:

And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. (1:18-19)

Rather than self-overcoming and self-transcendence it appears to be about obedience and being saved in what is and will happen. The scope here is not the individual but the world.

submits to a psychological reading — ZzzoneiroCosm

What does this mean other than to impose an interpretation on the text that is not faithful to it?

The destruction of the earth read as metaphor — ZzzoneiroCosm

To read it as a metaphor is to render it impotent. One might still find it inspiring, but the force and magnitude of what is claimed is lost.

Already addressed above.

I elide the hyper-Christy bits and read it as a poem written by some dude. Not concerned about John's intentions.

to impose an interpretation on the text that is not faithful to it? — Fooloso4

You don't have to be faithful to a poem. You can dissect it and twist it until it's something useful to you.




I know more about transpersonal psychology than John.

In a sense, John didn't know what he was saying.

You don't have to be faithful to a poem. You can dissect it and twist it until it's something useful to you. — ZzzoneiroCosm

By dissecting and twisting you end of with something that no longer resembles the thing you started with.

A "psychological reading" is ambiguous. Your reading seems to reflect more on you and your preoccupations then on John's experience or the psychological impact of his vision on centuries of readers.

Your reading seems to reflect more on you and your preoccupations... — Fooloso4

Quite obviously - and transparently - so.

... then on John's experience — Fooloso4

Not 'seems': it's precisely the thing I said thrice:

a poem written by some dude. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not concerned about John's intentions. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In a sense, John didn't know what he was saying. — ZzzoneiroCosm

... the psychological impact of his vision on centuries of readers. — Fooloso4

It's had some pretty silly impacts: like folks who take it literally.

If your preoccupations are theological, I refer you to the OP:

Shoo! — ZzzoneiroCosm

So far this thread has been free of theological fluff and indignation.

So,rorschach test?

If your preoccupations are theological ... — ZzzoneiroCosm

.

No, my interest is hermeneutical. Why start a thread on an influential theological text only to deform it and try to make it into something it is not?

Why start a thread on an influential theological text — Fooloso4

It interests me.

to deform it and try to make it into something it is not? — Fooloso4

This interpretation is reasonable, but not how I see it. Defending my elisions doesn't interest me.

Your view is fine, but it doesn't interest me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is clear that you have no idea what my view is.

I would ask the same question with regard to any text. It is not a matter of theology, but of how you read a text and the relationship between them. Does the text get lost when reading becomes a form of writing?

hermeneutical — Fooloso4

You might say that a strictly psychological interpretation requires the elision of constrictive theological and mythological content.

But the bare fact is the interpretation I've set out has been useful to me, and that's that.

It's not my master's thesis in divinity. Just an interesting and useful aside.

It is clear that you have no idea what my view is. — Fooloso4

Your view that my interpretation is a deformation is clear to me. You just said it.

Does the text get lost when reading becomes a form of writing? — Fooloso4

If you like: I've rewritten John's Revelation. That doesn't trouble me.

Therefore we say it's part of the collective consciousness — Kevin Tan

Ok, thanks. So you just mean public awareness of an issue/phenomenon. I thought you were using it in a more technical way.

nothing about.. Self-overcoming. — Fooloso4

Open up chapters two and three of the KJV and ctrl-F the word overcometh. His chorus of overcomeths I take to be a call to self-overcoming.

To read it as a metaphor is to render it impotent. — Fooloso4

This is a claim with no factual basis.

My contact with John's Revelation, read psychologically and interpreted metaphorically, has altered the course of my psychospiritual development.

You might say that a strictly psychological interpretation requires the elision of constrictive theological and mythological content. — ZzzoneiroCosm

When the content is theological and mythological an interpretation that ignores them is empty.

Your view that my interpretation is a deformation is clear to me. You just said it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That is not my view. My view of what is at issue is not limited to the problems I see in your interpretation.

If you like: I've rewritten John's Revelation. That doesn't trouble me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That does not trouble me either. As long as there is clarity regarding what is going on.

Open up chapters one and two of the KJV and ctrl-F the word overcome. His chorus of overcomes I take to be a call to self-overcoming. — ZzzoneiroCosm

These statements are not about self-overcoming. I found four mentions of overcoming in Chapter 2.The first (2:7)refers to the Nicolaitans (2:6), who were a revel Christian sect. The second (2:11) refers to (2:11) the devil (2:10). The third (2:17) also refers to the Nicolaitans (2:15). The last (2:26) Satan (2:24).

To read it as a metaphor is to render it impotent.
— Fooloso4

This is a claim with no factual basis.

A metaphor about the Apocalypse does not have the same psychological consequences believing what is foretold. People do not fear a metaphor or change their life because of something that they do not believe will actually happen.

I get it. We disagree. Take care. :smile:

If my interpretation isn't useful to you.... It's okay.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Etc

is empty — Fooloso4

It's not accurate to call what is useful empty.

change their life because of something that they do not believe will actually happen. — Fooloso4

People change their lives for all kinds of reasons.