Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Myth

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Might be interesting to post one of Steiner s assessments of Schelling: How infinitely meaningful is such an idea [ human evolution passed through a period of
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Might be interesting to post one of Steiner's assessments of Schelling:

      "How infinitely meaningful is such an idea ["human evolution passed through a period of history"], compared with the desolate, unfruitful talk of human evolution, which is nothing but an abstract idea, in which what follows after is added to what came before as if it were just another link in a chain. How profound by comparison is Schelling's `theosophy' [ Note 2 ] which he developed on from Jakob Böhme! This `theosophy' of Schelling attains such lofty heights that, by comparison, the later thoughts of theologians represent a steep decline. Schelling fights his way through to the realization that what matters in Christianity is not so much its doctrine. This doctrine is seized upon by modern progressive theology as if Christ Jesus were no more than a teacher. What matters for Schelling is not the doctrine, but the fact of the Mystery of Golgotha. We must look up to the fact of the Mystery of Golgotha, the fact of the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ Jesus."

      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/KarmUntru2/19170106p01.html

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > I think it's time for some more debunking of Staudenmaierian myths. Starting with the notion of 'myth' itself but also including the notion of 'language', whose spiritual understanding is so hated and despised in the Hole, and moving onto the notion that Steiner's anthroposopical thought marked a radical and unbridgeable jump from his earlier period of German Idealism and that German idealism itself had no room for the spiritual world or gods. So, let's start: in the Staudenmaierian worldview, a myth is simply something untrue, something that can be attributed to 'Steiner fans' for instance. However, to Schelling, in his Philosophy of Mythology, the introduction of which I have been reading (http://books.google.co.uk/ebooks/reader?id=bqaJEEvaI-4C&ganpub=k370973&ganclk=GOOG_1469101105&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&source=gbs_atb&pg=GBS.PR11.w.1.2.0) it is something much more interesting. It is, for instance, something spiritual and historical - the spiritual in history that Der Staudi, in spite of his frequent claim to the contrary, does not take seriously. The introduction has it:
      >
      > "I think that one could also speak of this method as *genealogical* in the Nietzschean sense, that is to say, Schelling begins from the fact of the mythological and attempts to retrieve what is unthought - and in some sense inherently unthinkable - at its ground. Schelling retrieves genealogically not more myths about mythology. He establishes that mythology is neither the mere poetic fancy of humans nor a feeble attempt at protophilosophy or proto-science. Mythology os not a human invention. Furthermore mythology has dispersed into the heterogeneity of peoples and languages. Mythology founds a people (and the dispersion of humankind into peoples is the dispersion within mythology itself). It belongs to the ground of the multiplication of languages. "One is almost tempted to say: language itself sonly a faded mythology; what mythology still preserves in living and concrete differences is preserved in language only in abstract and formal difference" [XI 52].
      >
      > Mythology is in fact the very fact of the multiplication of humanity, the tower of Babel's confusion of languages. These differences -the very heterogeneity of humanity- are not human inventions any more than language is simply a tool at the dispersal of humanity. Mythology is subjective in the sense that it happened within humanity as its multiplication, as the dissemination of the One (difference) into Many (the heterogeneity of identities). But this dissemination was not the result of the agency of humanity. The theogonic process, through which mythology emerges, is a subjective one insofar as it takes place in consciousness and shows itself through the generating of representations; but the causes and thus also the objects of those representations are the actually in in themselves cosmogonic powers…The content of the process are not merely *imagined* potencies, but rather the pounces themselves - which create consciousness and create nature…The mythological process does not have to do with natural *objects*, but rather with the pure creating potencies whose original product is consciousness itself" [Xi 207].
      >
      > And hence we come to Schelling's boldest claim, and one of the boldest claims of the nineteenth century, a claim whose strangeness no doubt still abides. One does not explain the fact of mythology philosophically by arguing that mythology is really something otherwise than what it purports itself to be the infancy of reason, pro to-science, archetypes, the despotic musings of power hungry priests, the overarching ambitions of a poetic instinct, culture-wide delusional thinking, etc.). Rather the fact of mythology is the fact of what Schelling elsewhere class the *tautegorical*. Mythology is the fact of the history of the coming of the Gods and the Gods come as themesleves.
      >
      > …
      >
      > Schelling brings us to the doorstep of the possibility of a philosophical religion."
      > "
      > James M. With, Seattle University
      >
      > How very Barfieldian! And how the Hole would hate this, when you consider how vehemently they reacted against my relatively anodyne formulation that different languages develop from and express different cultures! I think I'm going to enjoy this work and long-live the 'post language turn' philosophical renaissance!
      >
      > Oh, the introduction points to a resurgence of interest in Schelling happening in Germany from '55, alongside Karl Jaspers', Schelling: Grosse und Verhangnis. I guess that means it's well advanced or died out: Franck, Jean-Marc?
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.