(no subject)

Date: 2007-08-02 06:01 pm (UTC)
Interesting observation on the last there... I hadn't considered the idea that our self-image is similarly distilled, but that instead we use the distilled forms as probes into our own psyches. I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive, however. A simplified form of self-image is easier to haul around as an internal model than a fully realized system. The map is not the terrain, and all that.

I suppose it's no great surprise to learn that the same mechanism used to distill mythic characters into desired reflective facets for our own internal state is also used to create religious figures. They occupy the same niche in many ways - a desire for something larger, something purer, something to learn from, and so on. Religious figures almost always come with their own demands of you, of course. I guess it boils down to other internal needs going unmet as to which of the two, religious or archetypical, one turns to for insight. The person who believes in the inherent unworthyness of humanity (and themselves) is more likely to turn to an external 'superhuman' being to guide them through the real world, and require that being to be 'real', while someone with a more humanist view is likely to turn to recognized fictional examples. Just a guess.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

kickaha: (Default)
kickaha

January 2020

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags