Greek Mythology

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sure, if you define archetypes as 'structuring mental principles', I will concede that archetypes exist. But under such a definition, I might as well say that arithmacy, language and formal logic are also archetypes.

You might, but you'd be playing the Jesuit. I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of whether arithmetic, language and formal logic are structuring mental principles in the sense that I have in mind (I think they are not).

So: I'm sure you have a good idea of the general meaning of 'archetype' in this context. Why don't we talk about that instead of playing with definitions? You seemed to believe earlier that archetypes don't exist: What specifically were you thinking?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
The point is that Jerome might have got it right, but the meaning was deliberately changed, with archetypal consequences.

No. If this really was just a vowel change, then no meaning has changed. Only the form, which is arbitrary, has changed. Perhaps over time, the meaning changes with the form, but that could not be characterised as 'deliberate'.[/b]

Oh, right. That's why the song goes "stella maris" and the popular image is that of a star. No change in meaning at all there. 🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't know. Most of what I remember of Greek mythology is probably from elementary and middle school. Thought that perhaps someone might have a handle on this and thought the idea interesting. What's also interesting is how many can see and even ridicule "myths" in other traditions but not recognize it in their own. It's as if they are completely blind to the idea. Delusion perhaps?

Sounds like you have grave doubts whether the Father God that Jesus described actually exists. If you believe the Father that Jesus prayed to is quite possibly a delusion then you make a mockery of everything that Jesus did. His entire ministry is predicated on the work of his Father. If God does not exist Jesus' ministry is a nonsense.

I find it interesting that whilst exhorting others to think about the "will of God" and follow "the commandments of Jesus" , at the same time you appear to have little or no faith that God actually exists at all.

Curious fellow.....

Originally posted by Ullr
It is interesting and makes we wonder what all this tells us about the mindset of the tribe of Israel. Perhaps this is the product of a downtrodden and oppressed people that are ultimately in need of salvation.

Patriarchal desert nomads ... A dangerous crowd.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You might, but you'd be playing the Jesuit. I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of whether arithmetic, language and formal logic are structuring mental principles in the sense that I have in mind (I think they are not).

So: I'm sure you have a good idea of the general meaning of 'archetype' in this context. Why don't we talk about tha ...[text shortened]... emed to believe earlier that archetypes don't exist: What specifically were you thinking?

So: I'm sure you have a good idea of the general meaning of 'archetype' in this context. Why don't we talk about that instead of playing with definitions? You seemed to believe earlier that archetypes don't exist: What specifically were you thinking?

I am thinking of archetypes as recurring figures. Maybe it is the old man, the hero, the Messiah-figure. But I do not see why these exist, like in Jungian psychology, as some kind of mental fact, some 'organising mental principle'. They don't appear in all cultures. Maybe they are just inherited literary tropes, but not something rooted in the human mind.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh, right. That's why the song goes "stella maris" and the popular image is that of a star. No change in meaning at all there. 🙄

Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it seemed as if you were saying that by substituting 'stilla' with 'stella', Jerome was deliberately changing the meaning. As I argued, there really was no change in meaning. Jerome only changed the spelling, the form. Obviously there has been a change in meaning, some centuries later. But now it could not be called deliberate since St. Jerome was only following a dialectical phonological rule that 'i' converts to 'e', not intentionally changing the meaning.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it seemed as if you were saying that by substituting 'stilla' with 'stella', Jerome was deliberately changing the meaning. As I argued, there really was no change in meaning. Jerome only changed the spelling, the form. Obviously there has been a change in meaning, some centuries later. But now it could not be called delibera ...[text shortened]... ical phonological rule that 'i' converts to 'e', not intentionally changing the meaning.

Presumably Jerome got it right. The meaning seemed to change in the 9th century. Was the shift deliberate or the result of ignorance? Either way, it seems to have allowed Mary's function to expand.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So: I'm sure you have a good idea of the general meaning of 'archetype' in this context. Why don't we talk about that instead of playing with definitions? You seemed to believe earlier that archetypes don't exist: What specifically were you thinking?

I am thinking of archetypes as recurring figures. Maybe it is the old man, the hero, the Messiah-f ybe they are just inherited literary tropes, but not something rooted in the human mind.[/b]

They don't appear in all cultures? I would say they do. But you go first.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They don't appear in all cultures? I would say they do. But you go first.

Not the same ones. For example, I wonder whether Aboriginal mythologies would contain these same archetypes. If a culture has an entirely different conception of the world, a different language and narrative-style, why would you expect the same archetypes?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Not the same ones. For example, I wonder whether Aboriginal mythologies would contain these same archetypes. If a culture has an entirely different conception of the world, a different language and narrative-style, why would you expect the same archetypes?

You've got it the wrong way around: archetypes would be psychic patterns underlying cultural forms. In any case, I don't really see much difference (archetypally speaking) between Aboriginal mythology and others. Maybe you could be more explicit.

Mother/father, daughter/son, warrior, shaman ... These are a few archetypes that I'm sure you'll agree are universal. Sure, they will be expressed differently -- that isn't really the point.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Catholic encyclopedia provides an alternative explanation for the origin of the title:

Most interpreters derive the name Mary from the Hebrew, considering it either as a compound word or as a simple. Miryam has been regarded as composed as a noun and a pronominal suffix, or of a noun and an adjective, or again of two nouns. Gesenius was the first to ...[text shortened]... ww.newadvent.org/cathen/15464a.htm

Vowel change, nothing to do with archetypes.

I see, however I offered before that the name Maria/ Myriam is associated with a specific title of the third sephirah, the sephirah Binah. QBLH predates Christianity, and on the other hand it was after the name of this sephira that the Hebrew girls were named and not the other way around. This sephira represents the female energy of the universe -this is the archetype-, and every sephira is related to conditions and not to parts of space -and the very meaning of the conditions that correspond to each sephira are specific archetypes too.

This sephira is also named by the QBLH meditators "Mara", "Huge Sea" "Mother of Every Existence" etc, and it is considered the primordial root of the Matter -and this is another archetype.

Therefore I disagree with the probability that Stella was meant to be stilla although I understand this thesis. In my opinion it is not a matter of a vowel change; I think that this is another trace of the hidden QBLH tradition, according to which the Hebrew name of the third sephira is also Understanding (the condition of Binah is synthesis/ primordial emanation of Life), and the meditators are well aware of the vision just after the incident "Let it be Light". So, since it is known that we have to deal with cosmic forces and not with "holy personages" when we deal with each sephira, I believe that the archetype based on the third sephira (Stella Maris understood as Star of the Sea) is used by a slightly different approach by the meditators regardless their system.

And I believe that there are another yet connections that offer the indication that we should not dismiss easily the idea of the archetypes (my sources are related to Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary 1999 G. de Purucker, Gods and Heroes of the Bhagavad Gita 1939 Geoffrey A. Barborka and Sanskrit Keys the Wisdom Religion 1940 Judith Tyberg amongst else):
Mara (Sanskrit) is also the god of Temptation, the Seducer who tried to turn away Buddha from his path. He is called the “Destroyer” and “Death” (of the Soul). Mara is one of the names of Kama, of the god of Love. BTW, the ancient Greeks’ goddess of love is Venus. Mara is also in exoteric religions a demon, but in esoteric philosophy it is personified temptation through men's vices, and translated literally means "that which kills" the Soul. It is represented as a King (of the Maras) with a crown in which shines a jewel of such lustre that it blinds those who look at it, this lustre referring of course to the fascination exercised by vice upon certain natures. All this has some resemblance with a, say, Star;
Mara is also death, ie the world of death, ie this very world of ours, and is considered by some Buddhists the “Destroyer”, the “Evil One”.
Finally, Mahamara “the Destroyer”, “the Evil One”, the Killer of the Soul” derived from the causative form of the verb-root mri -to die, therefore we are in front of a meaning related to “that which causes to die” or “that which kills”. Mara is the personification of the temptations that come to a man because it is caused by his own weaknesses and of his own past evil deeds and thoughts ((karma).

Conrau K my friend, it’s been a long time since I enjoyed so much a conversation at this forum; I am thankful
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yet (following archetypal thought) in the popular imagination the venerable archetype becomes 'Stella Maris', a much more radiant image than a drop of salty water (which remains, however, bitter).

The point is that Jerome might have got it right, but the meaning was deliberately changed, with archetypal consequences. Alternatively: the new use of st ...[text shortened]... ypal feminine.

Popular imagination and high theology frequently diverge, don't you think?

You are roasted my obnoxious brother😵

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So: I'm sure you have a good idea of the general meaning of 'archetype' in this context. Why don't we talk about that instead of playing with definitions? You seemed to believe earlier that archetypes don't exist: What specifically were you thinking?

I am thinking of archetypes as recurring figures. Maybe it is the old man, the hero, the Messiah-f ...[text shortened]... ybe they are just inherited literary tropes, but not something rooted in the human mind.[/b]

They do appear in all cultures;

Originally posted by caissad4
Much of Judaic/Christian mythology reads like stories told to children as an explanation for the environment in which they lived. Could have this been the origin with god and legends becoming more and more "real" as the stories passed from generation to generation? Seems like later generations would take them literally without question.

Yes. In fact, they even came up with make believe Biblican archaeology to validate such stories.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes. In fact, they even came up with make believe Biblican archaeology to validate such stories.

I assume your talking about this:

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

I think this is great. Through this work they are finding artifacts, documents, carvings, etc. that provide historical information of human activity and show that there is some correlation between this history and passages in the bible as one would expect.

What does this prove? That the Old Testament is to a siginificant extent a record of the history of the people of Israel in addition to being their myths and legends.