If by that you mean we defend our ideals, I agree. I don't get the
connection with Original Sin. (Stephen)"
To explain the word association an archetype is a pure form (which is why
you will probably not meet an archetype at a cocktail party)...the term
"pure" also translates as "immaculate" or "perfection"; and "form" as
"conception", or "original". Therefore, I was implying that in order to use
an archetypal model one must begin with "original perfection" ("pure form",
"divine image", "immaculate conception"). I thought it was an interesting
aside that original perfection SEEMS to contradict the idea of original
sin--and if you had accepted that at face value then you would be more open
to some of my other views on religion and life.
Again, according to this model, there must be an immaculate conception
(mind), a divine image (spirit), original perfection (matter), and a pure
form (body)--though I used "pure form" above to refer to an archetype which
translates well but doesn't mesh exactly with the model.
Somewhere in the translation from mind, matter, or spirit to "body" (and
note how I use the term body here--as in "planetary body" or "body of
water") there seems to be a missing link. Where is this pure form which
allows us to communicate an idea, or a feeling, or a gestalt ("The Chair"
for example which everyone uses as a standard for communicating chairness to
others)? Where are these ideals--which you say we defend--personified?
What is THE IDEAL, the divine image toward which all ideals ideally tend?
I doubt that you will sit in The Chair at The Cocktail Party defending The
Ideal any where but in The Perfect World. On the other hand, I don't think
you could communicate using such generalities as "cocktail parties" unless
these criteria are true.
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort