Theo and Atheo were walking down the road. Each claimed the other was his shadow. "I cannot be your shadow," said Theo. "I am light." "Proves my point," said Atheo. "What shadow would dark have but light?"
An interesting way of looking at these two sides of the particular continuum you are addressing.
There is third perspective preceeding theo & atheo that is not being considered here however. Opening to what is without the need for a god concept is not that same as being anti-god. In fact I would argue that the antigod concept is a reaction to the initial god infection - forming antibodies to the initial pathogen.
Sorry to be so blunt but this is how these matters appear to me.
Thesis / antithesis; self-identity / Other / not self; To me these are just two sides of the coin; If we limit our sense of self / other then the shadow emerges.
Blunt away, brother! I see your perspective. In this particular little ditty, I was thinking more of God and Satan talking, the Light and the Dark journeying along together, adversarial buddies, yikking and yakking, yinning and yanging, bumping each other off the road into the ditch whenever possible, but always meandering down the road together.
Atheo here does not mean a-theist. It just means not-Theo. I am playing off a little Jungian stuff too. Jung speaks of the Shadow. I was wondering what is the Shadow's shadow.
Heraclitus' enantiodromia reigns over the wilderness of 40 day/nights--and didn't this domain spawn and amplify these light/dark echos? Now, enter a tertium quid qua 'per-spec-tive' (or a Hegelian synthesis). Perhaps not.
Perspectives are wilderness symptoms. Or is "perspective" in this case a meta-linguistic entity? I feel an impending infinite regress; maybe an umbrella (term) may help...
Gary, you don't need the Mary Poppins umbrella nor Dorothy's slippers. Nor Alice's rabbit hole. You are already on the other side, my man.
I opt for the enantiodromatic spawning. A novel thought for me -- the 40 day wilderness birthed the eternal intertwining of the two healing serpents on the caduceus cross. It were the wilderness what did it. I thank you for helping my brain cells light up with action.
How do you know it's not the right and left hemispheres of the brain yakking away? The left hemisphere is the Atheo, and the right hemisphere is the Theo. Atheo usually dominates unless you are a right-brained creative person, or a pilot. Both are part of the same brain, yet the Atheo part usually dominates due to handedness and training that accentuates the Atheo (half-wit) rather than unity of Atheo/Theo (full wit). The brain can't balance both hemisphere's inputs without some sort of applied stimulus be it internal or external. I'm not sure you can assume that an equilibrium or partnership between hemispheres will occur naturally. That would suggest that all Enlightenment is spontaneous, when in fact there is spontaneous Enlightenment and trained Enlightenment, Jesus and Buddha being the examples of both. Or, am I being too Atheo, or is that Anal, here? :)
John, I amuse myself by thinking about the brain thinking about the brain (I'm easily amused). And isn't it odd that "a" as in Atheo means "not" and a-mused would then mean "without the muse" and the muse is the goddess of creativity and a-musement (there we go again). So more appropriately, I might say I muse myself. As always, I appreciate your musings. The distinction you make between spontaneous and trained enlightenment and relating that distinction to Jesus and Buddha is thought promoting. A conversation between Atheo and Anus is also musing.
An interesting way of looking at these two sides of the particular continuum you are addressing.
ReplyDeleteThere is third perspective preceeding theo & atheo that is not being considered here however.
Opening to what is without the need for a god concept is not that same as being anti-god. In fact I would argue that the antigod concept is a reaction to the initial god infection - forming antibodies to the initial pathogen.
Sorry to be so blunt but this is how these matters appear to me.
Stan
Thesis / antithesis; self-identity / Other / not self; To me these are just two sides of the coin; If we limit our sense of self / other then the shadow emerges.
ReplyDeleteBlunt away, brother! I see your perspective. In this particular little ditty, I was thinking more of God and Satan talking, the Light and the Dark journeying along together, adversarial buddies, yikking and yakking, yinning and yanging, bumping each other off the road into the ditch whenever possible, but always meandering down the road together.
ReplyDeleteAtheo here does not mean a-theist. It just means not-Theo. I am playing off a little Jungian stuff too. Jung speaks of the Shadow. I was wondering what is the Shadow's shadow.
Heraclitus' enantiodromia reigns over the wilderness of 40 day/nights--and didn't this domain spawn and amplify these light/dark echos? Now, enter a tertium quid qua 'per-spec-tive' (or a Hegelian synthesis). Perhaps not.
ReplyDeletePerspectives are wilderness symptoms. Or is "perspective" in this case a meta-linguistic entity? I feel an impending infinite regress; maybe an umbrella (term) may help...
Where did I place my Ruby Slippers?
--Gary
Gary, you don't need the Mary Poppins umbrella nor Dorothy's slippers. Nor Alice's rabbit hole. You are already on the other side, my man.
ReplyDeleteI opt for the enantiodromatic spawning. A novel thought for me -- the 40 day wilderness birthed the eternal intertwining of the two healing serpents on the caduceus cross. It were the wilderness what did it. I thank you for helping my brain cells light up with action.
How do you know it's not the right and left hemispheres of the brain yakking away? The left hemisphere is the Atheo, and the right hemisphere is the Theo. Atheo usually dominates unless you are a right-brained creative person, or a pilot. Both are part of the same brain, yet the Atheo part usually dominates due to handedness and training that accentuates the Atheo (half-wit) rather than unity of Atheo/Theo (full wit). The brain can't balance both hemisphere's inputs without some sort of applied stimulus be it internal or external. I'm not sure you can assume that an equilibrium or partnership between hemispheres will occur naturally. That would suggest that all Enlightenment is spontaneous, when in fact there is spontaneous Enlightenment and trained Enlightenment, Jesus and Buddha being the examples of both. Or, am I being too Atheo, or is that Anal, here? :)
ReplyDeleteJohn
John, I amuse myself by thinking about the brain thinking about the brain (I'm easily amused). And isn't it odd that "a" as in Atheo means "not" and a-mused would then mean "without the muse" and the muse is the goddess of creativity and a-musement (there we go again). So more appropriately, I might say I muse myself. As always, I appreciate your musings. The distinction you make between spontaneous and trained enlightenment and relating that distinction to Jesus and Buddha is thought promoting. A conversation between Atheo and Anus is also musing.
ReplyDeleteSteve, what is the coin's shadow?
ReplyDelete