posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:15 PM
First, I want to thank everyone for there contributions here. The amount of opinions being exchanged is staggering, I never thought my thread would
garner this level of discussion. That said, there is simply no way for me to work through the previous six pages of commentary, and reply to each and
every opinion, while still keeping this thread on topic and relevant. I had intended to, but seeing the sheer amount I know that I cannot.
I want the discussions to continue though, as I find many of them to be very interesting.
So, I'm just going to reiterate some things here, and after having done that, I'll do my best to jump in with the discussions currently underway and
carry on from there.
My original post did not discuss any type of religious stance. So, for those of you discussing God, or religion, while I enjoy the commentary, it
doesn't really apply here. I have my own religious beliefs concerning whether or not there is a Creator, and if so who's message most closely
resembles His or Her desires. This thread is not about that though, by all means, believe in God and Christ, or the God and Goddess if that's more to
your liking. Religion is a personal thing, and will only ever apply to you yourself. I can't touch that, because if I were to say any specific
religion is wrong, they would all be wrong; because every religion in existence has the exact same amount of undeniable evidence for it's validity:
What I was attacking, was philosophies. Specifically, ones which I thought were unfounded, full of fluff and woo, and did not stand up beyond an
individuals desire for them to be real. Which, judging by the amount of personal "I believe..." rebuttals that I got, I feel safe in saying is the
There are too many disharmonious elements in the world alone, and the world is insignificant compared to the Universe, for the philosophy of All is
Love to be valid. Whether you believe in love or not, is irrelevant. Love is a chemical reaction, and it causes as much pain and death as it does
bliss and joy. The fact that senseless crimes, hate-induced murders, jealous rages, starving children, oppression, and racism exist means that love
and hate share equal weight in the world. One does not supersede the other.
At the same time, it is mostly fringe science, often driven by a "conclusion before the hypothesis" approach, that seems to support the idea of a
Universal Consciousness, of which we are all momentary emanations. Textbook science, used to treat disease, repair damaged tissue, and to function the
things we use every day, suggests that it is not a Universal Consciousness, but a finite, localized consciousness which we possess. Our overlapping
archetypes come not from a Group Mind, but from the industrialization and advancement of cultures. It is our environments, which we master, which
cause us to share in experiences; not the fact that every human is born with 12 specific archetypes, etc.
At the same time, Jung's theories are no longer held in as high a regard as they once were. Neither is Joseph Campbell's "mono-myth," because both
of these over-simply the depth and complexity of ancient man, ancient myth, human evolution, and the ways in which memory and thought operate. While
we can certainly benefit from a study of archetypes, I do not think that there is a Collective Unconscious from which we're all drawing them. Quite
the opposite, continents and cultures develop cultural consciousness, which we all take from as we grow.
This being why West Asia had the archetypes of the Bull King, the Storm Lord, the Dying and Rising God, the Trickster who was also the Divine
Intelligence, and the Queen of Heaven... yet Great Britain and the Celts did not have these same exact archetypes. Or why the Norse combined the Storm
Lord, Divine Intelligence, and Dying and Rising God into one figure (Odin) while putting the Trickster into his own form (via Loki). The deeper into
ancient myth, religion, and spirituality one delves, the more you begin to see that world-wide archetypes, collective consciousnesses, and
"mono-myths" do not add up one-hundred percent of the time.
I do still enjoy archetypes, myths, and ancient religions though. And will most likely jump into the conversation concerning them if it continues on
Anyway, again, thank-you everyone for the contributions and discussions. I should have more time now to devote to continuing this thread as I
~ Wandering Scribe