From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 21:43:02 BST
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam said:
Given your interest in Jung, wouldn't you agree that our culture's
relationship to science contains a deep ambivalence, and that these contrary
myths, of light and dark, are ways in which society is 'compensating' for
what has happened since the scientific revolution? Just as the
'madonna/whore' complex results from an unintegrated anima?
dmb says:
It was Jung's idea that UFO lore is fundamentally an expression of our
anxiety about science and technology. The "mad scientists" is pretty much an
archetype. In fact, Mary Shelly's Frankenstien is subtitled "a modern
Prometheus". You may recall that Prometheus is the one who stole fire from
the gods and gave it to humanity. Given the number of nuclear weapons in the
world, Prometheus is apt for our age and there are good reasons to be
concerned. But I think that the main thrust of these myths about science is
basically an underground, unconscious version of the social level's immune
system at work. We see it overtly in politics and war, but the same clash
between the levels goes on in that dimension too. While there is some small
amount of respect given to scientists and intellectuals in some small
circles, it seems to me that the US has an anti-intellectual streak that is
miles wide. I mean, our myths about science only express the same set of
feelings and attitudes that we can also see in broad daylight. And I don't
think it is all that ambivalent. Most people fear and distrust it. The
fundamentalists prefer creationism and the bible. Enviromentalists prefer a
clean and "natural" world. Conservatives and Reactionaries think
intellectuals are a bunch of egg-head commies. The villain in every other
comic book is a scientist gone bad. New Agers amd Neo-Pagans prefer the
bronze age with its magic. The examples are endless. I see little reason to
believe that science has become an object of worship or that anyone expects
it to be the birthplace of the new messiah. Pirsig's ZMM was so huge
precisely because it addressed our collective feelings of alienation from
technology, the preception that it is ugly and unhuman. He's trying to
counter the myth of the mad scientists, the myth that science is unconcerned
with humanity's depths. The MOQ only further dispells this myth by showing
what the true nature of intellect is in the broadest of contexts.
As to the Madonna/Whore complex - I don't know. As I understand it, the
anima/animus figure appears in the dreams of individuals. (I've been chasing
mine around for at least twenty years. Even picked my wife because of it.)
If the animus/anima figure appears anywhere near our collective myths about
science, it would be news to me. But I'm so glad you asked because that is
pretty much what I hope to do with the screenplay, the re-telling of the
Orpheus myth. You may recall that Orpheus follows his dead bride into Hades
to bring her back from the dead. This is his anima, his higher self, his
personal goal, the aim of his next transformation. He yearns for her in the
deepest recesses of his heart. Well, in my screenplay she is a scientist. He
thinks he's going to save her, but it is she who rescues him. Effectively,
this re-telling makes science and intellect an object of passionate desire,
the integration of which will save one's life. But, like Pirsig's main
thrust, it is an upriver journey. It cuts across the grain and expresses the
opposite of fear and anxiety. This is difficult to express, hope it makes
sense.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 21:45:51 BST