Jesus and Oedipus

[Mole]

Truth and Truthiness

Truth is a function of print and the literate individual, while truthiness is a function of the electronic media.

Mr Trump is an exponent of the electronic media, on TV as the host of a reality show, and now daily on twitter. And Mr Trump has given us truthiness.

Mr Trump's literate individual opponents say he lies, but Mr Trump neither lies nor tells the truth, no, he is frying other fish with truthiness.

Yes, truthiness is neither true nor false, rather it is plausible or implausible.

And we met truthiness in advertising, in metaphor, in poetry, in art, in the movies, in religion, and in propaganda, and of course in mbti.

The literate individual is concerned with verifiable truth, with rational debate, and with evidence and reason, while those from the electronic culture are concerned with truthiness, are concerned with being plausible, and are concerned with being believed and liked.

We are moving from the world of the rational individual to the world of global shared emotion, and truthiness is all that is needed. And Mr Trump leads the way.

So in our new electronic world, emotional literacy leads the way. And interestingly Mr Trump is more emotionally literate than he is print literate.

This explains some of the hatred for Mr Trump, for it is the print literate that hate the emotionally literate Mr Trump.

And who can blame the print literate for their hatred, for they are simply laughed at by the emotionally literate. Being laughed at by Mr Trump must seem to be the last indignity.

 

[Ursa]

I honestly don't understand the animosity you guys have for [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]. He posts legitimately interesting stuff. Stuff that makes me think.

If he doesn't make sense to you, then ask. If he does make sense to you, then address his ideas. No need for passive-aggressive bullshit.

 

[Mole]

We are meaning creating animals because we need meaning to orientate ourselves.

Our most common meaning is external meaning. We orientate ourselves by all the external meanings that bear on us every day.

And less common is internal meaning. Rather than orientating ourselves externally, we orientate our selves internally. This means that our internal life is as real to us as the external life. And for some of us our internal life is profoundly precious, more precious than anything else.

And for those externally orientated it is hard or impossible to understand internal orientation. Internal orientation is not real to the externally orientated. Indeed internal orientation disorientates the externally orientated. They don't understand this and are lost and blame the internally orientated.

But what is internal orientation but the marriage of imagination and reality. It is a delight but requires learning, development, and practice, a bit like playing the piano. It is perennial, a never failing spring, fresh and sparkling.

 

[onemoretime]

We are most concerned about what is most precious to us persisting after our own deaths. For some, that is in the material world. For others, it's in the internal world. But we all share that same concern.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We are most concerned about what is most precious to us persisting after our own deaths. For some, that is in the material world. For others, it's in the internal world. But we all share that same concern.

Yeah, it's natural for people to have anxieties about death and come up with various ways of dealing with that.

 

[Mole]

We are most concerned about what is most precious to us persisting after our own deaths. For some, that is in the material world. For others, it's in the internal world. But we all share that same concern.

It seems to me as meaning creating animals that meaning is the most precious to us. And the supernatural after natural death is a metaphor that casts a template of meaning over our life and death.

Death is not the opposite of life, death is the opposite of birth. And we naturally die to make way for the next generation. The religious alternative of living forever is preposterous and pernicious.

 

[onemoretime]

It seems to me as meaning creating animals that meaning is the most precious to us. And the supernatural after natural death is a metaphor that casts a template of meaning over our life and death.

Death is not the opposite of life, death is the opposite of birth. And we naturally die to make way for the next generation. The religious alternative of living forever is preposterous and pernicious.

For many, meaning is the most important. For others, though, family is more important. And for others, the esteem of their peers is more important.

For Oedipus, fame and the esteem of his peers was so important that it led to his fall and blindness. But for Jesus, meaning indeed was the most important. This is why we hold Oedipus up as a cautionary tale, and Jesus as an example to be followed.

 

[Tengri]

On first sight Jesus and Oedipus would seem to be odd bedfellows, but on closer inspection they have a lot in common. In particular they both have a relationship with their parents, as each of us do.

And even closer inspection shows their relationship with their parents is diametrically opposed. As Oedipus loved his mother and hated his father, Jesus was tortured to death by his father, and the mother of Jesus was devoted to him.

So Oedipus had the normal Oedipus Complex while Jesus had a reverse Oedipus Complex.

Of course both Jesus and Oedipus are metaphors for our relationship with our parents.

In both cases neither Jesus nor Oedipus were aware of the nature of their relationship with their parents, and in the case of Oedipus it led to self inflicted blindness, and in the case of Jesus, led to Jesus being tortured to death.

So both Jesus and Oedipus are warnings to us to examine our relationship with our parents, analyse it, evaluate it, and integrate it into our other relationships.

And it is well worth pointing out that mbti does not help us understand our relationship with our parents, and leaves us at the mercy or our unconscious psychodrama with our parents.

While I enjoy comparative mythology (and this is definitely a fun topic), I have to politely disagree. What makes this comparison fall on its face is the fact that Jesus' mortal father Joseph, according to the literature anyway, was a very decent human being. Consider his loyal, self-effacing attitude when his young bride 'spontaneously' conceived a child (given the terrible taboo and shame of that in Judaic society) or that he trained his son in his craft while raising their other natural-born children (according to earlier apocryphal Gospels). The early Christian and zealot cults valorized Christ as the 'lamb of mercy', in this case, in direct opposition to the Roman worldview of might and heroism. Sophocles' tragic hero is a very different culture and tradition and traces its influence possibly to Mesopotamian myths. The tragedy Jesus faces is at the hands of a conservative religious majority with the aid of Roman law, but upon ascension becomes one with that God, assuming his divinity like Mithra. It's also important to note that the behavior and tone of the Hebrew god is distinctively masculine, while the Christian rendition softens displaying maternal and merciful judgment. Anyway, my point is just to plumb the depths of your argument a bit: maybe it would be more accurate to say that Jesus embodies a metaphor for religious reformation, new versus the old.

 

[Mole]

While I enjoy comparative mythology (and this is definitely a fun topic), I have to politely disagree. What makes this comparison fall on its face is the fact that Jesus' mortal father Joseph, according to the literature anyway, was a very decent human being. Consider his loyal, self-effacing attitude when his young bride 'spontaneously' conceived a child (given the terrible taboo and shame of that in Judaic society) or that he trained his son in his craft while raising their other natural-born children (according to earlier apocryphal Gospels). The early Christian and zealot cults valorized Christ as the 'lamb of mercy', in this case, in direct opposition to the Roman worldview of might and heroism. Sophocles' tragic hero is a very different culture and tradition and traces its influence possibly to Mesopotamian myths. The tragedy Jesus faces is at the hands of a conservative religious majority with the aid of Roman law, but upon ascension becomes one with that God, assuming his divinity like Mithra. It's also important to note that the behavior and tone of the Hebrew god is distinctively masculine, while the Christian rendition softens displaying maternal and merciful judgment. Anyway, my point is just to plumb the depths of your argument a bit: maybe it would be more accurate to say that Jesus embodies a metaphor for religious reformation, new versus the old.

I am pleased you are polite. Politeness is a reflection of character, and we reveal our character in conflict, particularly when we are losing.

And certainly Jesus does embody a metaphor of religious reformation, particularly for Protestants, as the Reformation itself is based on this metaphor of Jesus.

Christianity was faced with Pagan Rome and an emperor who was both God and man, so to compete with and imitate the Roman emperor, in the eyes of Christianity Jesus became both God and man.

This led to the interesting theology of the Trinity where there are three Gods in one God, it was the marriage of monotheism and polytheism, an extraordinary contradiction, which is described as a mystery of faith.

Of course those without faith see Ganesh, the Hindu God with the head of an elephant, and the Trinity, the God with three heads, as equally preposterous.

 

[Little_Sticks]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]
I have a meta-question that needs an honest answer. It's not an attack or an insult or whatever you "could" say it is. But here it is

Why should people engage you when you are so quick to define what is meant by what they say? I could have a discussion with you, but I'd have to defend myself from how you take my words, instead of talking about what was meant with those words. And whatever you may conclude from that, it adds a layer of difficulty in communication that makes conversing with you inherently more obfuscating and thus frustrating. In some ways, I think the lack of respect you perceive and the ad-hominems you get are at least partially because of this, but I suppose that's a different subject from the initial question; and I strongly imagine that you don't agree with that assessment, since you've had the same posting style for a long time now. But the question is still relevant, if you'd like me to engage you at some point on the forum.

 

[Mole]

Mole and the Unconscious

@Mole
I have a meta-question that needs an honest answer. It's not an attack or an insult or whatever you "could" say it is. But here it is

Why should people engage you when you are so quick to define what is meant by what they say? I could have a discussion with you, but I'd have to defend myself from how you take my words, instead of talking about what was meant with those words. And whatever you may conclude from that, it adds a layer of difficulty in communication that makes conversing with you inherently more obfuscating and thus frustrating. In some ways, I think the lack of respect you perceive and the ad-hominems you get are at least partially because of this, but I suppose that's a different subject from the initial question; and I strongly imagine that you don't agree with that assessment, since you've had the same posting style for a long time now. But the question is still relevant, if you'd like me to engage you at some point on the forum.

It is plain I am not here to pander to the neurosis of members, nor am I here to sacrifice my ability to think critically in the interests in a discredited 75 year old cult.

Rather I am a breath of fresh air in the face of neurosis and in the face of a world wide cult.

The price I pay is the shock of recognition. The members are deeply shocked to recognise themselves in my posts, and although they are looking in the mirror, they reject what they see, and naturally blame the messenger, Mole.

If you weren't shocked into recognition, you would have no response to my posts, my posts would not engage your feelings, and you would have no impulse to reply. But I get replies every day. And interestingly the replies reveal unconscious feelings.

So Little_Sticks I have no need to engage you, as you can't help but reveal yourself psychologically to me.

Of course you believe yourself to be master of your fate, and captain of your soul, so you try and engage me when you are already deeply and unconsciously engaged with me, for seventeen thousand posts.

What an extraordinary person you are.

 

[Tengri]

I am pleased you are polite. Politeness is a reflection of character, and we reveal our character in conflict, particularly when we are losing

You're very welcome It was hard to resist jumping headlong into an already broiling debate. I was wondering about your rationale

Oedipus is a metaphor for our desire to love our mother and hate our father, and Electra is a metaphor for our desire to love our father and hate our mother.

Jesus is the opposite metaphor: Jesus is a metaphor for being hated by our father and loved by our mother.

So Jesus and Oedipus are two sides of the same coin.

Could you elaborate your points a little more clearly for me? Why did you pair Oedipus with Jesus?

 

[Mole]

You're very welcome It was hard to resist jumping headlong into an already broiling debate. I was wondering about your rationale

Could you elaborate your points a little more clearly for me? Why did you pair Oedipus with Jesus?

The pairing illustrates some things we may not have noticed before. For instance, both Jesus and Oedipus are figures of mythology, this is obvious in the case of Oedipus but not obvious in the case of Jesus.

Also they are in stark contrast. The myth of Oedipus is disrespected mocked and laughed at while Jesus is worshipped.

On the other hand both myths are about the relationship of parents and child, the relationship we all share, but usually banish to our unconscious.

And although both myths are about the parent child relationship, the relationships are diametrically opposed.

And interestingly Oedipus did not know it was his parents he was dealing with, while Jesus begged his father not to torture him to death.

In my opinion the myth of Oedipus shows us how we unconsciously love one parent and hate the opposite parent, it is a myth about original love and hatred, while the myth of Jesus justifies child abuse, which we see repeated by the Church over the centuries.

 

[Little_Sticks]

It is plain I am not here to pander to the neurosis of members, nor am I here to sacrifice my ability to think critically in the interests in a discredited 75 year old cult.

Rather I am a breath of fresh air in the face of neurosis and in the face of a world wide cult.

The price I pay is the shock of recognition. The members are deeply shocked to recognise themselves in my posts, and although they are looking in the mirror, they reject what they see, and naturally blame the messenger, Mole.

If you weren't shocked into recognition, you would have no response to my posts, my posts would not engage your feelings, and you would have no impulse to reply. But I get replies every day. And interestingly the replies reveal unconscious feelings.

So Little_Sticks I have no need to engage you, as you can't help but reveal yourself psychologically to me.

Of course you believe yourself to be master of your fate, and captain of your soul, so you try and engage me when you are already deeply and unconsciously engaged with me, for seventeen thousand posts.

What an extraordinary person you are.

Sure Mole. Okay.

 

[Tengri]

The pairing illustrates some things we may not have noticed before. For instance, both Jesus and Oedipus are figures of mythology, this is obvious in the case of Oedipus but not obvious in the case of Jesus.

Also they are in stark contrast. The myth of Oedipus is disrespected mocked and laughed at while Jesus is worshipped.

On the other hand both myths are about the relationship of parents and child, the relationship we all share, but usually banish to our unconscious.

And although both myths are about the parent child relationship, the relationships are diametrically opposed.

And interestingly Oedipus did not know it was his parents he was dealing with, while Jesus begged his father not to torture him to death.

In my opinion the myth of Oedipus shows us how we unconsciously love one parent and hate the opposite parent, it is a myth about original love and hatred, while the myth of Jesus justifies child abuse, which we see repeated by the Church over the centuries.

Interesting perspective, thanks for explaining your thoughts. Admittedly, it's a comparison I've never run across before, though there is certainly something to the symbolism you've fleshed out. So, I'll retract my first post since it's historical basis doesn't really match up with the strain of your argument; apples and oranges, you know

 

[wool]

It would be unnatural for me not to be rejected by the vulgar, as the vulgar have a long and illustrious history.

As the original Bible was written in that language of good taste, Ancient Greek. But naturally it was inaccessible for the vulgar, so the Ancient Greek Bible of good taste was transcribed and translated for the vulgar. And naturally the new vulgar Bible was called the Vulgate, the Bible for the vulgar.

So the Vulgate, the vulgar Bible, corrupted our good taste, and today we glory in our vulgarity, and ostracise anyone with good taste.

Luckily the corrupt Vulgate Bible is only read by Catholics.

The King James Bible is as close as possible to the original Greek texts.

 

[Mole]

Luckily the corrupt Vulgate Bible is only read by Catholics.

The King James Bible is as close as possible to the original Greek texts.

It's time we had a song so click on C.W. Stoneking ~ The Love Me Or Die - YouTube

 

[wool]

It's time we had a song so click on C.W. Stoneking ~ The Love Me Or Die - YouTube

No thank you.

 

[Wunjo]

Unfortunately, from my point of view, of course, your assumptions are based on judgements that are not very well presented.

Why do you think that Jesus is ''hated'' by his father and "loved" by his mother? The arguments are seemingly on the hoof here because what defines Jesus is not the fact that he's hated by his father, but what defines Oedipus is the fact that he certainly loved his mother. The economical qualities, by economical qualities I mean the most emphasized points, of these two metaphors are entirely different, thus they are cannot be aligned in a dialectical sense. We all objectively know that Oedipus loved his mother, but only you assume subjectively that Jesus was hated by his father and only this fact is enough not to make them opposites, or two sides of the same coin, as you put it.

 

[wool]

God only hates sin, and being that Jesus was sinless, the metaphor falls apart.

Sorry Mole.