only the bad and the ugly?

I’m enjoying Conforti’s book but can’t take in too much of it at a time. Too close to home. The following quote refers to “the divine”, however, it also articulates my current psychoemotional stretch into (what feels like) quasi-sainthood…
“The Greek language has various terms to denote love. Eros and philo refer to love with a subject and object, a love that is a personal involvement and usually expects something in return (gratitude if nothing else!) – Whereas agape indicates love without any specific focus, an overflowing fullness of the heart, which cannot but be shared with whomever comes in contact with it, without expecting anything in return…[Ritsema, 2003] (p. 3-4). Living solely within the personal domain (Eros and philo), we end up recycling all too familiar information and material. However, touching the transpersonal (agape) creates an opening into something much greater than oneself.”
Rudolf Ritsema (2003, p. 3-4) of the Eranos Foundation in Conforti, p. xxii
Conforti is arguing for an a priori morphogenetic field that seeks to express itself in archetypal forms. So I have to wonder about my archetype, knowing that I am drawn into certain group situations that share some key characteristics. I’m not completely swayed with his disregard of any kind of dialectical co-construction, but can see where pieces coincide with other theories and concepts that I do abide – such as the notion of valence.
One must also wonder about the valence/archetypes of other members of these groups.
Again, it seems I am the messenger who must be killed. 🙁 Discourse change is So Hard!
Also interesting:
The Synchronity of Jung’s Response to Reality

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *