Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

Bill White · 2002-08-02 13:03:44

If we have a soul, then the body is a prison for that soul. When the body is gone, the soul is free. The creation of a body, or life, traps the soul- life becomes one of punishment, not prize. Am I missing something?

Does the soul pre-exist the body, as the Mormons believe or is it created by God - ex nihilio - at the moment of conception, the Catholic view, or are we all merely $5.00 worth of chemicals nicely arranged?

I confess, I don't know . . .

John Keats has also written on the world as the "Vale of Soul Making" - all of us are born with a spark of intelligence but only some of us achieve souls as we journey through life.

"Soul" as an "emergent property" of a sufficiently complex arrangement of $5.00 worth of chemicals? Hmmm. . . .

Palomar · 2002-08-02 15:51:58

*I had a response to Clark typed and nearly completed when my area was hit by a major power outage, apparently affecting 14 states. We were without juice for nearly 6 hours It's just as well, because I've got an even better response:

Clark, it doesn't surprise me that you fail to understand the difference between religion and reason, and that in fact you try to synoymize them. This is coming from the same person [you] who equates a burn victim on Mars -- soon to run out of pain medications and facing a 3-week wait without any pain killers whatsoever until the new shipment arrives from Earth, wishing to take her life via her own choice and thus relieve her excruciating suffering -- with mindless, sheep-like drones who kill themselves upon the commands of a leader.

So why should anyone expect you can see the difference between religion and reason?

And to try the old "offense is the best defense" tactic -- sorry, it won't work. To attempt to synonymize reason with religion, and thereby attempt to smear or degrade it, is as silly a tactic as calling your virginal date "a slut" because she won't give out. Nice try, doesn't fly.

As to your statement "The God of Reason." An oxymoron. It's like saying "The Atheistic Religious Leader." Nice try, doesn't fly.

The fact that you compare reason and its proponents to "bible thumpers" indicates either a) you are ignorant as to what each entails or b) are simply trying to be insulting or c) a combination of both.

Reason and religion are like oil and water -- they don't mix.

Since ::you:: are the person who wishes to portray religion and reason as being synonymous [I suppose you also think logic and schizophrenia are synonymous], I'll refute your efforts in that regard [relative to Christianity specifically, the religion in which I was raised as a child]:

1.

Religion: You are a pawn of either God or the Devil, in a cosmic game of "who gets the most souls wins."

Reason: You are your own person.

2.

Religion: Obey and do not question. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die" and "The devil is the author of the question mark" [yes, I've actually heard a television minister say these very words, and this same exact sentiment runs throughout religion, especially the more fundamentalist].

Reason: Question. Examine. Debate. Decide for yourself. Analyze.

3.

Religion: God [an externality] is the highest value [in politics, "God" could be substituted for "The State," such as in totalitarian regimes].

Reason: Your mind and reasoning skills/abilities are the highest value.

4.

Religion: Let another [authority figure/s] think, decide, and prescribe your life for you.

Reason: A mature and rational person thinks for him/herself, and is self-reliant.

5.

Religion: Dependence.

Reason: Independence.

6.

Religion: You can't know. How arrogant and disobedient of you to presume you can know.

Reason: I can know.

7.

Religion: You must conform and obey, or God [or The State, in politics] will punish you.

Reason: You are free to think for yourself, to make your own plans, to decide for yourself. As consequences result from all of our actions [cause and effect], the wise person will seek courses of action and plan which have the highest likelihood of returning pleasurable, fulfilling, and rewarding consequences...but consequences are never the result of punishment or reward from a "supernatural" agency.

8.

Religion: Trust/believe/hope in things unseen and unexplained [faith]: "God works in mysterious ways."

Reason: Believe in your 5 senses and your mind's ability to recognize, learn/retain, assimilate, and store/accumulate knowledge [2+2=4].

Of all the essays on what is reason and enlightenment, I like this from Kant the best:

"What is enlightenment? Enlightenment is man's release from his
self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of
his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is
this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason, but in lack
of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.
Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'--that is the
motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so
great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged
them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong
tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as
their guardians...After the guardians have first made their domestic
cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not
dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they
are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens
if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so
great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk
alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily
frightens them away from all further trials...But that the public
should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed, if only freedom is
granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow...For this
enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed
the most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly
be applied. It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at
every point. But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The officer
says, 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector says, 'Do not argue
but pay!' The cleric says, 'Do not argue but believe!' Everywhere
there is restriction on freedom." -- Immanuel Kant, essay "What is
Enlightenment," 1784.

There is nothing mysterious or difficult about the concept of reason. Reason is what urges you to NOT post on the internet personal information such as physical address, credit card banks and numbers, etc. Reason is what compells you to protect yourself at night by locking your doors. Reason is what people use to figure out if that box of instant mashed potatoes is a bargain at $13.00 per 12 ounce box or $1.75 per 12 ounce box.

Reason is the greatest attribute humankind has. He only has to believe in and rely upon himself to use it, for the betterment of his life and society in general. Very simple, and there's nothing "fanatical" about it, no more than the rudder, compass, helm, and wheel of a water-going vessel are "fanatical."

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-02 16:07:09

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think.

This is why previously I cited Antonio Damascio - the neurophysicist who wrote "Descartes Error" and "The Feeling of What Happens."

Per Damascio, thinking without feeling is medically impossible, purely as a matter of physiology. Since the purity of "Reason" - the assurances that one's own thoughts are indeed rational - can be undermined by the bio-processes going on in our human brains, how can faith in "Reason" be a secure foundation to build a philosophy on, reasonably speaking.

K5 had a great article suggesting that folks with high levels of dopamine in their brains are significantly more likely to believe in supernatural events. Something about a greater tendency to see patterns where none exist.

Or, perhaps lower dopamine levels prevent the rest of us from seeing the truth about ghosts, alien abductions and the like.

:0

Humanity = $5.00 worth of chemicals - nicely arranged - with delusions of grandeur. . .

Palomar · 2002-08-02 16:38:01

Cindy - and clark -
Ayn Rand is a powerful tonic for anyone wrongly oppressed by a dogmatic society. To that I will agree readily and fully.
However, what I find missing from her philosophy is a description of how one best relates to their parents and to their children. I believe how we bury our parents and how we raise our children - literally, symbolically and psychologically - is the central life issue we will all face. Rand speaks nothing to that.

*Well, I'm not sure how much of Rand you've read. I'm not as well versed in her philosophy as that of the 18th century philosophes; however, she was childless, and perhaps this explains why she does not [so far as I've read] discuss familial issues greatly. In her novel _We the Living_, Kira, the book's main character, has a typical teenage-rebellious attitude to her parents initially...then, as she matures, starts to cooperate with and help them. Rand said Kira was as close to her own personality as she'd ever written.

Rand believed in looking out for one's loved ones. She was also abhorrent of altruism, which she defined as "sacrificing a greater value to a lesser value." The example she used was the caregivers giving the last portion of their money to a beggar rather than keeping it to feed their children tomorrow.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-02 16:47:36

Kant himself saw the limits of Reason;

Kant himself was NOT an atheist;

Kant - and Voltaire - properly rejected the dogmatic, mumbo jumbo teachings of the 18th and 17th century Catholic Church, as do I, as well as the teachings of the Calvinists, Lutherans, French monarchists and others of that era.

70-80% of where Ayn Rand goes is OK with me - learning to say "NO!" to one's oppressors is a good thing, IMHO.

But once free from oppression - as I believe I am, more or less - LOL! - she has little more to say to me.

Would I support her in saying "NO" to an ignorant, dogmatic clergy - Absolutely YES, I would!

Yet, if I am intellectually honest - if asked:

Does God exist?

All I can say is: "I don't know - maybe YES and maybe NO"

My "Reason" depends upon neuro-biological processes of a few pounds of "meatware" in my skull - can I trust it?

All I can say is: "I don't know, I hope so"

Okay, what other choice do I have? Well, none, but that is based on practicality, not on any firmer basis.

To my reading, Ayn Rand cannot live or function in ambiguity.

Is Plato more right than Aristotle? The reverse? I don't know. I can think about it, I can have opinions, but can I really know who is right and who is wrong?

The ability to live in ambiguity is what Keats calls "negative capability" and Keats says he finds this in Shakespeare.

Is the Book of Genesis the word of God, dictated from the Father's lips to the hand of Moses? IMHO - NO! Its not.

Is the Book of Genesis a worthless collection of harmful stories? NO! Its not.

Does struggling to understand, deeply, the Book of Genesis bring us closer to the divine? Maybe. . . I am not sure yet.

Harold Bloom has proposed that the J strand of Genesis was written by a Hittite woman living in the court of King David. The Book of the Jews written by a Gentile woman, LOL! Yet, the God of the Jews would enjoy that irony as well, IMHO.

So anyway, this long winded rant ends with

"Lets not be so sure we can be sure."

Yes, at times, we must all pay our money and make our choice but being willing to live with ambiguity in an ambiguous world seems the best bet - and Ayn Rand despises ambiguity, IMHO.

Palomar · 2002-08-02 18:51:57

Do you wish to go "on strike against the creed of unearned gifts and unearned duties" - does this mean unchosen duties, by the way?
IMHO, we are not and cannot be gods. No man is an island, nor can any be an island. For better or worse we are all stuck with one another.

*Hi Bill. Actually, the quote was: "We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties."

I'll give you an example of what she means by "unearned rewards": Suppose you were 1 of a [supposed] 3-person work team. You and Larry are working hard on a backed-up project, and run into over-time, which the company has to pay you. The company doesn't object or say anything against you and Larry knocking yourselves out to get the project back within its time limit, even if it entails over-time hours and pay, and you both aren't overly thrilled about putting in the extra time even if it does mean extra money, because you work hard enough as it is, have a life outside of the company, have family and leisure needs and wants, etc., etc.; however, the project must be completed soon and you're working harder to ensure it gets done by a deadline. Your 3rd coworker, Hal, is a generally lazy person who doesn't care. He only helps out as much as won't get him in trouble with the boss...who knows what he is, i.e. lazy and irresponsible. The boss doesn't get on his back to help you and Larry out, and even if you and Larry get on Hal's case, he's obstinate and won't do his fair share of pulling with the workload; besides, you and Larry aren't his boss and the boss doesn't care either. Now the project's over, you and Larry have put in all that extra hard work and extra hours, which the company never objected to, all while Hal dinked around and did maybe only 20% of the work involved [enough to keep from getting fired] and never put in 1 second of over-time. And lo and behold, the day after the project is complete and the company remains in good standing with its client [thanks to you and Larry], the boss -- in front of you and Larry -- presents Hal with a "bonus paycheck" because "he didn't get any extra money from over-time" [because Hal didn't put in any over-time, but the boss is overlooking that "little" fact].

Get the picture? Hal got an unearned reward.

As for "unrewarded duties," based upon her other writings I am certain what she means here is people attempting to take advantage or pressuring others to do something, and not giving just compensation to the person put upon.

As for "no man is an island": We may all live on this planet together, but I for one am not going to allow a crackpot leader like Jim Jones to pursuade me to move to a South American private compound and later to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. I'm not going to clean out my bank account and throw money out of my car windows for anyone and everyone to catch as I whizz by. I'm not going to allow someone to tell me I must accept this or that in life "just because", i.e. "just because" some supposed holy scriptures say so or "just because" I'm a woman or "just because" [fill in the blank]. A person can be an individualist and still be socially conscious, compassionate, humanitarian, etc. We are all in this together, true; but not everyone plays fair, there are people out there who will hurt you, even destroy you if the opportunity arises, and besides there are MANY *groups* of people who have a collective "it's us against the world" mentality. Unchecked, irrational Group Think has done more harm to the world than any individualist has ever done.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-03 08:07:49

Kant himself saw the limits of Reason;
Kant himself was NOT an atheist;
Kant - and Voltaire - properly rejected the dogmatic, mumbo jumbo teachings of the 18th and 17th century Catholic Church, as do I, as well as the teachings of the Calvinists, Lutherans, French monarchists and others of that era.
Yes, at times, we must all pay our money and make our choice but being willing to live with ambiguity in an ambiguous world seems the best bet - and Ayn Rand despises ambiguity, IMHO.

*Hi Bill:

Voltaire, too, admitted the limits of reason [everything has its limit], and he also was not an atheist - Voltaire was a Deist. I am not an atheist either; I'm an agnostic.

As for Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?", I agree wholeheartedly with it; it is the most brilliant pro-Enlightenment piece of written material I've yet read. However, I'm afraid I do not know much about Kant himself at this point in time. I do not know the circumstances of his life -- both mundane and intellectual -- at the time he penned this essay, nor how [if at all -- I don't know, of course] he may have changed at a later period of time. My knowledge of Enlightenment personages is, at this time, limited to mainly French and Swiss philosophers, with a lesser [though gaining] knowledge of English and Scottish philosophers of the same era.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "ambiguity." I know the dictionary definition of it, but I'm curious as to how you mean the word in the context of the statement pertaining to Rand? Just curious.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-08-03 12:20:22

Voltaire, too, admitted the limits of reason [everything has its limit], and he also was not an atheist - Voltaire was a Deist. I am not an atheist either; I'm an agnostic.

Okay - so now we can agree - religion is not ALWAYS or NECESSARILY bad. That is all I am trying to say.

Is religion OFTEN dogmatic mumbo jumbo, foisted on us for ulterior motives? Well, yes, but not always.

Reason, generally, is a good thing. But anyone who believes human "Reason" can be infallible is going to get burned, IMHO.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "ambiguity." I know the dictionary definition of it, but I'm curious as to how you mean the word in the context of the statement pertaining to Rand? Just curious.

Negative capability is the ability to live while in doubt and uncertainty as to various moral or philosphical judgments.

Aristotle and Plato appear to contradict - how both can be "right" is hard to imagine. Thus, Ayn Rand's followers - at least at the Institute website - feel the need to pronounce Aristotle superior to Plato, an audacious judgment impossible to prove. The reverse is equally impossible to prove.

An oppressed person - who hates and despises the oppression - yet - can still see hints of humanity in an oppressor - such a person "gets" the idea of neagtive capability and can live with ambiguity.

A person who chooses science and reason over blind faith - yet - can still recognize and appreciate some value in religious traditions, lives with ambuiguity.

Back to the ballcap story - I have great human sympathy for the poor father who was arrested for unknowingly wearing a ballcap turned sideways, perhaps as a goof to entertain his child.

I also have sympathy - rather less to be sure - but some very real sympathy for the poor stupid cop who mistook the father for a punk looking for a fight. After all, lots of punks were turning their caps sideways as a signal they wanted to rumble and the cop was being pressured to crack down and stop those fights.

So, we do have right and wrong - a very dangerous wrong did happen as a child was left unattended - but no clear or obvious villian - - > moral ambiguity.

To go "big picture" - IMHO - Shakespeare is the best the world has ever seen at telling stories where the moral is hard to get at, where "who is right" and "who is wrong" is hard to figure out. By thinking about and discussing these stories, our own moral sense is honed, even when we disagree.

Rand, IMHO, rejects such ambiguity as "weak mindedness"

John Galt declares that he will never submit his Will to that of another, nor seek to impose his Will on another.

When I truly empathize with the perspective of another, my "Will" changes, yet have I submitted? To see a question from both sides requires an acceptance of ambiguity. How can someone who truly sees a question from both sides then follow John Galt's declaration that he shall follow his own Will and none other?

Palomar · 2002-08-03 19:41:16

Bill: Reason, generally, is a good thing. But anyone who believes human "Reason" can be infallible is going to get burned, IMHO.

*I agree. Nothing is infalliable. The strength of reason depends upon the mind to perceive, understand, and utilize it. And since no one's mind is perfect, since we all [to varying degrees] perceive the world through subjective lenses, etc., reason can never be perfect or infalliable because no human mind is perfect and infalliable.

Bill: Negative capability is the ability to live while in doubt and uncertainty as to various moral or philosphical judgments.

*I see where you're coming from. I can't recall which of the 18th century philosphers stated it -- I'm pretty sure Denis Diderot, but not certain [and searching the archives of my mailing list yielded up no clues] -- but one of the *knowns* of that time stated that the philospher knows when to suspend judgment, as all things cannot be known. Voltaire stated, "Let each of us boldy and honestly say 'How little it is that I really know!'".

Bill: Aristotle and Plato appear to contradict - how both can be "right" is hard to imagine. Thus, Ayn Rand's followers - at least at the Institute website - feel the need to pronounce Aristotle superior to Plato, an audacious judgment impossible to prove. The reverse is equally impossible to prove.

*Given what I've read both by Aristotle and Plato and about them, I think Aristotle was much more on the right track than Plato; however, this doesn't mean that ALL of Plato's ideas, viewpoints, etc., were wrong or bad. Last evening I was reading the ideas of Scottish philsopher David Hume [18th century]. I very much disagree with the majority of his philsophical proposals and ideas...however, his writings contain nuggets of wisdom and truth here and there. Voltaire wasn't always right -- I've admitted that before, along with stating I have areas of disagreement with him as well. Plus, I ::gain:: a benefit when I challenge myself by reading a plethora of philosophers and philosophies.

As for the ARI and Rand's followers: I'm not a member of the ARI, and never could be. A few years ago I was subscribed for a few weeks to an ARI-controlled mailing list; one could not be subscribed to the list unless one filled out a questionnaire, name [I gave only my 1st name], and agreement to abide by the principles of the mailing list or get unsubbed. I thought I'd find a group of open-minded intellectuals willing to discuss various aspects of philosophical thought, including points of disagreement with Rand [I have points of disagreement with her, needless to say]. What I found there was intolerance, Group Think, and "Randroids" merely echoing Rand. No original thought, no disagreement; she said it, and that was that. I was considered something of a heretic and my last post garnered such outrage that I unsubscribed. I couldn't stomach them; they are close-minded.

Rand had some very excellent points made in her writings. I quote her when I think she's "on the money"...but then, I do that with many others as well. And again, I have major points of disagreement with her as well. Rand thought she knew everything and could not be wrong; I think she was one step away from megalomania, but that's just my opinion. I can go so far with Ayn Rand, but there's definitely "a line" with me, relative to her overall philosophical views and opinions.

Bill: An oppressed person - who hates and despises the oppression - yet - can still see hints of humanity in an oppressor - such a person "gets" the idea of neagtive capability and can live with ambiguity.

*Good point.

Bill: To go "big picture" - IMHO - Shakespeare is the best the world has ever seen at telling stories where the moral is hard to get at, where "who is right" and "who is wrong" is hard to figure out. By thinking about and discussing these stories, our own moral sense is honed, even when we disagree.

*I've not yet given Willie the Shakes a try.

Bill: When I truly empathize with the perspective of another, my "Will" changes, yet have I submitted?

*I don't see it as your will changing when you empathize with another person's perspective...?

Bill: Rand, IMHO, rejects such ambiguity as "weak mindedness"

John Galt declares that he will never submit his Will to that of another, nor seek to impose his Will on another.
To see a question from both sides requires an acceptance of ambiguity. How can someone who truly sees a question from both sides then follow John Galt's declaration that he shall follow his own Will and none other.

*Hmmmm. Well, you raise a good point about ambiguity. I'm not quite following you on the connection you're seeing about ambiguity and one's will, though.

I agree that not everything is Black And White. There are muddled and gray areas in life, in thought, in practice...etc. Yes, I see your point about Rand despising ambiguity, and I think you're right; I hadn't recognized that about her before, so thanks for pointing it out. It would be unreasonable to deny ambiguity exists or, conversely, to see ambiguity as being all bad and undesirable.

I think Rand's biggest mistake was thinking she was absolutely 100% objective and reasonable 24/7/365. Such a thing is not possible, IMO.

And as I've mentioned before, we all have the subjective inside of us as well; I also believe the subjective is the driving force behind each personality, i.e. that which helps to form, mold, and retain personality. It has its vital, undeniable importance to our lives as well.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-05 12:22:45

I think Rand's biggest mistake was thinking she was absolutely 100% objective and reasonable 24/7/365. Such a thing is not possible, IMO.

Then how can we ever have objective values for action?

And in regard to your last post to me, you misunderstand- I am not trying to portray you or anyone else's beliefs as anything.

What I am pointing out is that Reason holds that there can be a knowable truth, and Religion does the same thing. They both operate from the concept that humanity can absolutely know everything, which is not true.

Religion teaches that man cannot hope to comprehend everything. Reason teaches that man will never know everything, but he can try. So maybe the probelm is just perspective.

Palomar · 2002-08-05 12:48:49

Me: I think Rand's biggest mistake was thinking she was absolutely 100% objective and reasonable 24/7/365. Such a thing is not possible, IMO.

Clark: Then how can we ever have objective values for action?

*Sterile surgical procedures in hospitals are not perfect. Do we give up on hospitals and performing surgeries then? No. Airflight isn't perfect...do we ground all airplanes then, and forbid flying? No. If absolute perfection were required for something to exist, or to be usable, nothing would exist or be usable.

Clar: What I am pointing out is that Reason holds that there can be a knowable truth

*Based on empirical evidence and methods, observation, the use of one's senses, collecting, questioning, comparing, cataloging, defining, etc., etc. Facts.

Clark: and Religion does the same thing.

*Based on accepting something as "true" without questioning it, without proof or lack of proof: Faith.

Clark: They both operate from the concept that humanity can absolutely know everything, which is not true.

*No, they do not. That IS one thing reason and religion does have in common: Neither believes humankind can know everything. The difference is that reason continually quests and pushes and evolves into trying to gain as much knowledge as it can, while recognizing and admitting its limitations -- it is ACTIVE. Religion accepts its precepts [founded on story-telling, fables, and simply accepting something as being "true"] without questioning or doubting the veracity of its "truths" -- it is STASIS.

Clark: Religion teaches that man cannot hope to comprehend everything.

*Religion, in my experience, teaches that it is impossible for mankind to comprehend much or that he needn't bother "wasting his time" trying to figure things out, etc., since "God knows everything; don't question or doubt." You're supposed to just passively and happily accept everything they tell you without a smidgen of doubt or question. Stasis and stagnation.

Clark: Reason teaches that man will never know everything, but he can try.

*Yes. This is what I've been saying all along. Reason compels, prods, and encourages the aquisition of knowledge; question, doubt, prove it, etc., etc. Change and growth.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-06 21:00:30

I can't recall which of the 18th century philosphers stated it -- I'm pretty sure Denis Diderot, but not certain [and searching the archives of my mailing list yielded up no clues] -- but one of the *knowns* of that time stated that the philospher knows when to suspend judgment, as all things cannot be known.

*It wasn't Diderot, it was Cesar Chesneau Dumarsais. This evening I finally found the reference I'd been seeking at my mailing list archives the day I responded to you, Bill.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-07 20:00:32

Aristotle and Plato appear to contradict - how both can be "right" is hard to imagine. Thus, Ayn Rand's followers - at least at the Institute website - feel the need to pronounce Aristotle superior to Plato, an audacious judgment impossible to prove. The reverse is equally impossible to prove.

I often think politics is somewhat in the realm of religion being that there's no "rational science" to it. Politics is merely the art of controlling people and is usually based on such voodoo and superstitions as personal morals and emotional opinions. I think you illustrate the point well when you bring up Plato and Aristotle. You can't really prove which one is right and which one is wrong even though personally I don't feel very partial to Plato myself. He was the ultimate statist but I think he has to be given credit for believing in having benevolent rulers who would truly seek to improve the lot of the nations they ruled and not corrupt them for personal gain. I agree fully with Plato in at least one respect though, those who want to rule are usually not the ones who should be given rule.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-08-02 13:03:44

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#27 2002-08-02 15:51:58

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#28 2002-08-02 16:07:09

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#29 2002-08-02 16:38:01

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#30 2002-08-02 16:47:36

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#31 2002-08-02 18:51:57

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#32 2002-08-03 08:07:49

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#33 2002-08-03 12:20:22

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#34 2002-08-03 19:41:16

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#35 2002-08-05 12:22:45

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#36 2002-08-05 12:48:49

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#37 2002-08-06 21:00:30

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

#38 2002-08-07 20:00:32

Re: Jung, Campbell, and Co. - Archetypes, religion, mythology, etc.

Board footer