I am reflecting on the 'voice' of the Self.
Is it possible that we all recognize this 'voice' - characterised by a profound sense of surprise and of lack of ego?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
I had a dream on the morning of Pentecost with a dream-figure called Helen. Here is what I found when I looked-up the name:
St. Elmo's fire (also St. Elmo's light) is an electrical weather phenomenon in which luminous plasma is created by a coronal discharge originating from a grounded object in an atmospheric electric field (such as those generated by thunderstorms or thunderstorms created by a volcanic explosion).
St. Elmo's fire is named after St. Erasmus of Formiae (also called St. Elmo), the patron saint of sailors. The phenomenon sometimes appeared on ships at sea during thunderstorms, and was regarded by sailors with religious awe, accounting for the name.
Physically, St. Elmo's fire is a bright blue or violet glow, appearing like fire in some circumstances, from tall, sharply pointed structures such as lightning rods, masts, spires and chimneys, and on aircraft wings. St. Elmo's fire can also appear on leaves, grass, and even at the tips of cattle horns. Often accompanying the glow is a distinct hissing or buzzing sound.
In ancient Greece, the appearance of a single one was called Helena and two were called Castor and Pollux. Occasionally, it was associated with the Greek element of fire, as well as with one of Paracelsus's elementals, specifically the salamander, or, alternatively, with a similar creature referred to as an acthnici.
Welsh mariners knew it as canwyll yr ysbryd ("spirit-candles") or canwyll yr ysbryd glân ("candles of the Holy Ghost"), or the "candles of St. David".
References to St. Elmo's fire, also known as "corposants" or "corpusants" from the Portuguese corpo santo ("holy body"), can be found in the works of Julius Caesar (De Bello Africo, 47), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia, book 2, par. 101) , Herman Melville, and Antonio Pigafetta's journal of his voyage with Ferdinand Magellan. St. Elmo's fire was a phenomenon described in The Lusiads.
St. Elmo's fire (also St. Elmo's light) is an electrical weather phenomenon in which luminous plasma is created by a coronal discharge originating from a grounded object in an atmospheric electric field (such as those generated by thunderstorms or thunderstorms created by a volcanic explosion).
St. Elmo's fire is named after St. Erasmus of Formiae (also called St. Elmo), the patron saint of sailors. The phenomenon sometimes appeared on ships at sea during thunderstorms, and was regarded by sailors with religious awe, accounting for the name.
Physically, St. Elmo's fire is a bright blue or violet glow, appearing like fire in some circumstances, from tall, sharply pointed structures such as lightning rods, masts, spires and chimneys, and on aircraft wings. St. Elmo's fire can also appear on leaves, grass, and even at the tips of cattle horns. Often accompanying the glow is a distinct hissing or buzzing sound.
In ancient Greece, the appearance of a single one was called Helena and two were called Castor and Pollux. Occasionally, it was associated with the Greek element of fire, as well as with one of Paracelsus's elementals, specifically the salamander, or, alternatively, with a similar creature referred to as an acthnici.
Welsh mariners knew it as canwyll yr ysbryd ("spirit-candles") or canwyll yr ysbryd glân ("candles of the Holy Ghost"), or the "candles of St. David".
References to St. Elmo's fire, also known as "corposants" or "corpusants" from the Portuguese corpo santo ("holy body"), can be found in the works of Julius Caesar (De Bello Africo, 47), Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia, book 2, par. 101) , Herman Melville, and Antonio Pigafetta's journal of his voyage with Ferdinand Magellan. St. Elmo's fire was a phenomenon described in The Lusiads.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What is the myth in which you live? (Jung)
The need for mythic statements is satisfied when we frame a view of the world which adequately explains the meaning of psychic wholeness, from the co-operation between conscious and unconscious.
A truly living symbol compels unconscious participation and has a life-giving and life-enhancing effect. Symbols of this kind, woven into a mythic structure are the functional motivators of culture. Symbols are truly symbols to those for whom they are alive. A symbol dies when the meaning of its referent has been fully apprehended by consciousness.
An expression that stands for a known thing remains a sign and is never a symbol. It is therefore quite impossible to create a living symbol, ie., one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is thus produced never contains more than was put into it.
The source of a symbol is clearly and simply the unconscious. And this is no unwitting and unguided factor that produces symbols, for psyche is purposeful, goal-directed and symbols are its messages of guidance; hence his concern for dreams and their interpretation.
Architypal Process. David Ray Griffin
The need for mythic statements is satisfied when we frame a view of the world which adequately explains the meaning of psychic wholeness, from the co-operation between conscious and unconscious.
A truly living symbol compels unconscious participation and has a life-giving and life-enhancing effect. Symbols of this kind, woven into a mythic structure are the functional motivators of culture. Symbols are truly symbols to those for whom they are alive. A symbol dies when the meaning of its referent has been fully apprehended by consciousness.
An expression that stands for a known thing remains a sign and is never a symbol. It is therefore quite impossible to create a living symbol, ie., one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is thus produced never contains more than was put into it.
The source of a symbol is clearly and simply the unconscious. And this is no unwitting and unguided factor that produces symbols, for psyche is purposeful, goal-directed and symbols are its messages of guidance; hence his concern for dreams and their interpretation.
Architypal Process. David Ray Griffin
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
In the Beginning was the Conversation
This is a section of my article on Content and Process in Spirituality:
The dialogue of the Samaritan Woman is mostly at the level of Content (“You have no bucket”; “Give me this water so that I may never be thirsty”). His dialogue is mostly at the level of Process (“If you knew the gift of God…”; “The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life”.) By the end of the meeting she has undergone a transformation and the new Reciprocal Roles could be described as –
He : Self-revealing (“I am he, the one who is speaking to you”)
|
|
She : Known/open to the Spirit (“He told me everything I have ever
done.” )
As Bateson pointed out, the dialogue has moved from being about thirst, water and ethnic/social issues – to being about ‘you and me’ – the relationship itself. There could be no movement or transformation at the level of Content, but at the level of Process the relationship becomes meaningful and open to change. The Relational Self is responsive at this level; this is where you can push it and it will move. Content acts as a carrier for the real activity, which is the Process. The Relational Self can only be recognized and engaged by moving to the level of Process.
My thesis is that if Religion is only about Content (dogma; whose in and whose out; hierarchy; authority), - it has lost its way. As David Tacey says in his analysis of the Spirituality Revolution:
Religion imposes the ‘big story’ of theology upon our experience... It does not allow for the true radicality of the spirit… Religion is rejected, not because a person does not believe, but because he or she is not believed.
Tacey 2004
However, I think that the fairly obvious distinction between Institution and personal experience is the tip of this iceberg. Recognizing the difference is one thing – learning to inhabit the Process level of oneself-in-relation to the Spirit is another!
The dialogue of the Samaritan Woman is mostly at the level of Content (“You have no bucket”; “Give me this water so that I may never be thirsty”). His dialogue is mostly at the level of Process (“If you knew the gift of God…”; “The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life”.) By the end of the meeting she has undergone a transformation and the new Reciprocal Roles could be described as –
He : Self-revealing (“I am he, the one who is speaking to you”)
|
|
She : Known/open to the Spirit (“He told me everything I have ever
done.” )
As Bateson pointed out, the dialogue has moved from being about thirst, water and ethnic/social issues – to being about ‘you and me’ – the relationship itself. There could be no movement or transformation at the level of Content, but at the level of Process the relationship becomes meaningful and open to change. The Relational Self is responsive at this level; this is where you can push it and it will move. Content acts as a carrier for the real activity, which is the Process. The Relational Self can only be recognized and engaged by moving to the level of Process.
My thesis is that if Religion is only about Content (dogma; whose in and whose out; hierarchy; authority), - it has lost its way. As David Tacey says in his analysis of the Spirituality Revolution:
Religion imposes the ‘big story’ of theology upon our experience... It does not allow for the true radicality of the spirit… Religion is rejected, not because a person does not believe, but because he or she is not believed.
Tacey 2004
However, I think that the fairly obvious distinction between Institution and personal experience is the tip of this iceberg. Recognizing the difference is one thing – learning to inhabit the Process level of oneself-in-relation to the Spirit is another!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
