Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00234)

Hi Paul,

Well I'll be, and Hallelujah! Who knew there was actually a word for 
this. But I'll trust you to find one if there is one every time.

This whole Intelligent Design/Darwinism debate is very interesting, 
and a conundrum too. I don' t really believe humans evolved from apes 
either, but I'd rather go with Darwin for the time being than the 
apparent alternative. Nobody ever burned anyone at the stake so far 
as I know for lack of belief in Darwin. I'm essentially conservative, 
I suppose. 

So, back to our subject. Enantiodromia. Wow. What do you suppose is 
the way out of this dilemma? I mean, if every glorious inspiration 
from enlightened consciousnesses is doomed to quickly degenerate into 
muck, the future is remarkably uninteresting, to say nothing of 
dangerous, catasrophic even. 

I would posit that we take things in our own hands, so to speak, and 
resolve not to follow the crowd. Think for ourselves. Just reject 
revenge and hatred. Choose love. What do you think?

Adelasie

On 21 Dec 2005 at 16:21, kpauljohnson wrote:

> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> Your thoughts are much appreciated, and tie in to a discussion now
> going on in another forum I frequent. (Intended to post a link, but
> realized that only subscribers can read there.)
> 
> You wrote:
> > 
> > Do you suppose that an "end justifies the means" attitude could be
> > said to characterize organized religion in general? 
> 
> Absolutely. If morality is defined by the dictates of a God, rather
> than being a matter of natural rights, then whatever serves God's
> alleged interests is right and whatever conflicts with said interests
> is wrong. Hence, trashing a book for religious reasons, in violating
> of professional ethics, as in the case that has me so exercised today.
> 
> It seems that, no 
> > matter which body of philosophy we consider, after the inception, 
> it begins to degenerate until it becomes pretty much the same thing
> it was originally opposed to. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing in
> the name of God become the rule. > The Jungian concept of
> enantiodromia is very interesting here. Derived from Heraclitus, it's
> the idea that things turn into their opposites by an unconscious
> process. But as long as I'm citing a totally unscientific explanation
> for this kind of thing, I'll go whole hog and bring in Gurdjieff. His
> notion of A, B, and C influences helps me understand how this kind of
> thing always happens in "spiritual" organizations. More enlightened
> consciousness is constantly releasing uplifting energies, or C
> influences, that are said to emanate from the Conscious Circle of
> Humanity. But they immediately interact and combine with A
> influences, those of ordinary mechanical life. Result, mixed or B
> influences in which it can be very tricky to sort out the higher from
> the lower.
> 
> > It seems that perhaps the descent of the sublime and pure truth 
> into the dense material plane of human habitation and mental activity
> > makes it pretty difficult for its purity to be maintained. As soon
> as it takes on form, it begins to be corrupted, and those who receive
> it necessarily try to clothe it in the same old familiar conceptual >
> tradition. > For which reason, says Gurdjieff, the conscious circle
> must continually emanate fresh C influences, because entropy (not his
> word for this, of course) is continually degrading the previous ones. 
> I think humanity could use a fresh infusion right about now!
> 
> > Better the familiar darkness than the unfamiliar Light?
> > 
> Alas, the light of Darwinism has been around for 150 years, and the
> fundamentalists are still fighting it in favor of the familiar
> darkness of creationism!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
>