September 8th, 2004
|10:11 am - Eliade and Jung will destroy your mind!|
I realized recently that we scholarly people like to do something strange.
Fluff-Bunny Newbie: What's a good book on Paganism? How do I learn about my religion?
Scholarly Pagan with Ego: Read Eliade's Myth of Eternal Return. You'll understand things better. Or Joeseph Campbell's Hero with 1,000 Faces. Or get yourself some Jung. And don't call him Jung, call him Young.
FBN: This will make me a better Pagan?
SPE: Of course! You'll know about the collective unconscious! You'll understand how myth is an expression of primordial time. You'll see how there are no original myths.
FBN: Oh. Is that what Paganism is about?
SPE: Well, no. It's about personal experience.
FBN: But why am I reading this then?
SPE: Because they're important. It gives you tools to talk about your religion.
FBN: But I don't know what my religion is about! How will I talk about things I don't have an experience of? It'd be like having a hammer and no nails!
SPE: I use my hammer all the time. In fact, I'm using it now to make my point to you.
FBN: Oh, I see. I'm going to go back to being Christian. Thanks anyway.
SPE: [muttering under breath] Obviously, FBN wasn't cut out to be Pagan anyway.
Why do we do this? Shouldn't our first recommendation be: Go out into the woods, sit there, and wait for something to happen. If nothing happens, pretend it did, because that's just as valid as anything else out there. ?
I think we're messed up, and we need to re-think things.
Besides, pointing people to Jung and Eliade is just going to mess them up.
Current Mood: bitchy
Current Music: "Burn That Bridge", -JB
Personal Note-- Never read Eliade.
What you're most likely to get from reading Jung is a nice, long nap. The guy was a seriously dry writer. I had a Jungian Analyst tell me back in College-the First Time that you're much better off reading books about Jung's Theories than reading Jung himself if you want to get a good grasp of what the man was on about. And this was because I'd mentioned that I was considering becoming a Jungian Analyst. So the idea of recommending the man for a good grasp on Paganism seems really silly to me.
It's funny. Jung's thoeries are really interesting & the man himself was really interesting but his writing's terrible. Freud on the other hand was a major wack job whose theories focused on sex so much because he wasn't getting any but he's a really good writer. So guess who gets to be more popular?
It's a funny, funny world. :)