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

Is "Piece of Mind" a "Peace of Self?"

Expand Messages
  • hey_market
    I m reposting this reply to Wibro s post about Peace of Mind, since it doesn t appear to have successfuly downloaded. Not to play semantics (although that
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm reposting this reply to Wibro's post about "Peace of Mind," since
      it doesn't appear to have successfuly downloaded.

      "Not to play semantics (although that is part of the play, after all,
      at least on this particular stage, not to mention the stage of life
      in general), but it might help to say that we're seeking peace of
      Self vs. seeking a peace of mind. And this peace of Self would be
      definied as union with the Self (captial "S" clearly intended).

      Or maybe better still, we can scrap the whole "Self" terminology
      (perhaps not altogether, but only temporarily, because it is highly
      useful on the WHOLE) and simply say that on the most elemental
      ontolgoical level we seek fullness, the Pleroma, or at least Gnostics
      do anyway, although we all experience limit while outside the Pleroma.

      So, what we're talking about here is not merely a dissolution, but an
      integration. Of course, it's certainly much easier to describe the
      dissolution since we daily experience what is to be dissolved (the
      world of limit and its seemingly unlimited faces of limit) whereas
      we're merely only coming (or coming and going,as may be the case) to
      experience that which is to be integrated.

      As for myths, they simply re-present the whole existential case that
      always stands before us (limit relative to fullness), and thus
      perhaps they hold the potential to expand our consciousness so that
      we may see or move towards this fullness which is otherwise
      occultized or hidden from us (a whole story in itself, which Gnostics
      zero-in on through their own myths, though ultimately, it's at the
      root of all myths).

      Now then, if myth is seen as fact, then it is merely a story among
      countless stories, and it merely presents a perhaps amusing
      alternative world, but it's still just another place of limit--
      offering us a piece of mind rather than true peace of mind.

      In such cases, such stories (and our piecemeal approach to them)
      possess as much the capacity to narrow our scope as to widen it.

      In fact, given that the practice of literalalizing myth is by
      definition a kind of narrowing, then we might expect it to yield
      narrowing results. Why should it open us up to anything?

      In other words, if we limit myth, then it will surely limit us.

      I might add that whenever myth is taken literally, it no longer may
      be defined as myth since it no longer functions according to the
      definition of myth--and one must rely on definitions to effectively
      use language, especially in such instances as this where linguistic
      distinctions are so closely tied, and senstive to, sensible and
      comprehensible dialogue.

      At any rate, when myths are divested of their mythic function, they
      effectively become nothing more or less than stories or else beliefs
      (or even belief systems, such as they may evolve) or else... whatever
      else--they're just no longer myths, and in typical fashion, they
      become meaningless to people over time.

      Considering the literal/material predisiposition of the modern world
      and its tendency to narrow its focus, it's small wonder that the past
      three centuries (the Age of Microscopes, one might say) has seen a
      devaluation of myth.

      As a result, more people than ever know more microscopic details than
      ever about our world, but perhaps relatively fewer know about their
      Reality. Perhaps I'm overstating the case and being a tad too
      cynical, and who knows, maybe we're even about to enter a new
      Macroscopic Age, eh?

      More likely, the yin/yang, light/dark, micro/macro, etc./etc. world
      will march onward. But where to?

      Well, I don't think I'm being overly cynical when we look at the
      world's great religious myths and we see how literalization has so
      often limited human and individual consciousness and growth, whether
      this literalization was undertaken by the political, ecclesiastical,
      or academic right or left.

      However, the exceedingly good news is that when myth is perceived as
      something more than fact, it releases us (or more accurately, we
      release ourselves in the process of a dialogue with myth) from limit
      to greater fullness. We exerience greater realizations, greater
      insights, and greater consciousness.

      That should be a welcome experience for anyone in any language."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.