On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:04:22 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:lsr9o3him74t7qnc3e2qs9frk3i5rqpavs@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:28:20 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>news:hvcqn35ou3gnrg3h309spv4f3b3dndte8g@4ax.com...
>> [...]Larousse's Dictionary of World Folklore down off the shelf and
>>>> came across this in the introduction:
>>>>
>>>> "Since [folklore] is found in every culture, from the most primitive
>>>> to the most sophisticated, it may be assumed to fulfil a universal
>>>> need among society. In pre-literate groups folklore may be primarily
>>>> the transmission of learned information, a vital part of group
>>>> survival." and so on.
>>>>
>>>> So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
>>>> an important human thing mind you...
>>>
>>>I'd say folklore is a part of religion - possibly an essential part?
>>
>> That rather sounds as if folklore has been swallowed by religion,
>> which I don't think is the case. Surely there's plenty of tales with
>> no reference to religion?
>
>Do you know of any religion which doesn't include folklore, though?
>

Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.

>>
>> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
>> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
>> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
>> humans.
>
>Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?

It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
do stuff like that without realising. 

I was about to say that we've stuck folklore in amber now and that
tales aren't changing in the same ways, but that's nonsense actually. 

>
>>
>>>is
>>>folklore the same as myth? -
>>
>> I'd say no. <g>
>>
>> I'd say no *because* I see myth as man's way of explaining how the
>> world came to be, and folklore as lessons in how to live in it or how
>> to laugh at it. Which means I get slightly confused about Greek myth,
>> it has to be said, but then that's probably because I don't know it at
>> all and so don't know where it would fit with my rapid-construction
>> categories there. :-)
>
>That's an interesting way of defining 'em. Theory and practice? Or, the 
>myths are "high" culture and the folklore is "low"?

Hmm, perhaps not high and low. First and second? Oh I dunno. Myths
deal with what happened first, at any rate. Would be interesting to
know which were *told* first, though, myths or tales.

>
>>
>>>but not the *only* part.  I think you have to
>>>take into account the community function of religion, as well as 
>>>individual
>>>"spirituality" or "belief" or whatever.
>>
>> There is a community function in folklore as well, isn't there?
>
>Not the same as a religious infrastructure which has prohibitions and 
>permissions, though.

Well no, it doesn't have the same infrastructure but there are plenty
of tales which warn folk not to do $foo because Bad (and sometimes
hilarious) Things Will Happen. Not so sure about permissions. 

This is another reason why I think religion tried to occupy the
folklore niche (since I now appear to be thinking of religion and
folklore as species, like squirrels...), it serves the same functions
but codifies them, makes them formal. Upon that foundation rules and
permissions can be built, as can formal roles for the storytellers.
They can also take on other functions in a formal way.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

{gah, brain fart, dunno what to snip}
"Halla"  wrote in message
news:em04p39eej1irv659c3rl2jrrm2qvadbvv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:04:22 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>
> >
> >"Halla"  wrote in message
> >news:lsr9o3him74t7qnc3e2qs9frk3i5rqpavs@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:28:20 -0000, "Jani" 
> >> blethered:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Halla"  wrote in message
> >>>news:hvcqn35ou3gnrg3h309spv4f3b3dndte8g@4ax.com...
> >> [...]Larousse's Dictionary of World Folklore down off the shelf and
> >>>> came across this in the introduction:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Since [folklore] is found in every culture, from the most primitive
> >>>> to the most sophisticated, it may be assumed to fulfil a universal
> >>>> need among society. In pre-literate groups folklore may be primarily
> >>>> the transmission of learned information, a vital part of group
> >>>> survival." and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
> >>>> an important human thing mind you...
> >>>
> >>>I'd say folklore is a part of religion - possibly an essential part?
> >>
> >> That rather sounds as if folklore has been swallowed by religion,
> >> which I don't think is the case. Surely there's plenty of tales with
> >> no reference to religion?
> >
> >Do you know of any religion which doesn't include folklore, though?
> >
>
> Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
> case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
> swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
> sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
> think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.
>
> >>
> >> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
> >> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
> >> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
> >> humans.
> >
> >Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?
>
> It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
> been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
> religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
> Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
> back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
> turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
> do stuff like that without realising.
>
> I was about to say that we've stuck folklore in amber now and that
> tales aren't changing in the same ways, but that's nonsense actually.

Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth from
a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes and how
personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
personal mythologies. I saw a few links in this book with Freudian
Psychodynamic approaches, Transactional Analysis concepts of life scripts
and Games. Also quite obviously draws significantly on Jungian theory.

I was inspired to look into this a bit further and was thinking up a thesis
of sorts - still in its infancy, nay foetus-hood, but developing with
thought, debate and consideration.

Jo

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:em04p39eej1irv659c3rl2jrrm2qvadbvv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:04:22 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>
>>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>news:lsr9o3him74t7qnc3e2qs9frk3i5rqpavs@4ax.com...
[]


>>>>> So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
>>>>> an important human thing mind you...
>>>>
>>>>I'd say folklore is a part of religion - possibly an essential part?
>>>
>>> That rather sounds as if folklore has been swallowed by religion,
>>> which I don't think is the case. Surely there's plenty of tales with
>>> no reference to religion?
>>
>>Do you know of any religion which doesn't include folklore, though?
>>
>
> Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
> case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
> swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
> sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
> think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.

Do you define folklore as tales alone, or both tales and practices?

>>>
>>> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
>>> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
>>> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
>>> humans.
>>
>>Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?
>
> It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
> been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
> religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
> Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
> back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
> turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
> do stuff like that without realising.

Wouldn't the hero-myth or the spell be part of the pre-existing religion, 
though? That is, relegated to folklore by the 'new' religion, but not seen 
as folklore by its original believers / practitioners?

> I was about to say that we've stuck folklore in amber now and that
> tales aren't changing in the same ways, but that's nonsense actually.

I know what you mean. Thing is, if you're in the middle of the changes as 
they happen, you don't really notice them *as* changes, IYSWIM.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>is
>>>>folklore the same as myth? -
>>>
>>> I'd say no. <g>
>>>
>>> I'd say no *because* I see myth as man's way of explaining how the
>>> world came to be, and folklore as lessons in how to live in it or how
>>> to laugh at it. Which means I get slightly confused about Greek myth,
>>> it has to be said, but then that's probably because I don't know it at
>>> all and so don't know where it would fit with my rapid-construction
>>> categories there. :-)
>>
>>That's an interesting way of defining 'em. Theory and practice? Or, the
>>myths are "high" culture and the folklore is "low"?
>
> Hmm, perhaps not high and low. First and second? Oh I dunno. Myths
> deal with what happened first, at any rate. Would be interesting to
> know which were *told* first, though, myths or tales.

Depends on the protagonists, perhaps. If you're trying to explain the 
creation of the world, you have to invent gods. If you already have a local 
tale of a chap who built a big boat and survived the river flooding when his 
mates didn't, you've already got the bit of grit to start off the pearl. 
Give it enough time, though, and *both* stories will be attributed to gods.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>but not the *only* part.  I think you have to
>>>>take into account the community function of religion, as well as
>>>>individual
>>>>"spirituality" or "belief" or whatever.
>>>
>>> There is a community function in folklore as well, isn't there?
>>
>>Not the same as a religious infrastructure which has prohibitions and
>>permissions, though.
>
> Well no, it doesn't have the same infrastructure but there are plenty
> of tales which warn folk not to do $foo because Bad (and sometimes
> hilarious) Things Will Happen. Not so sure about permissions.
>
> This is another reason why I think religion tried to occupy the
> folklore niche (since I now appear to be thinking of religion and
> folklore as species, like squirrels...), it serves the same functions
> but codifies them, makes them formal. Upon that foundation rules and
> permissions can be built, as can formal roles for the storytellers.
> They can also take on other functions in a formal way.

*nods* Again, I think it depends whether folklore is just stories (with a 
moral?) or also praxis - folk-cures, folk-magic, etc. And how much the 
praxis relates to everyday life, the individual's relationship with the 
community, etc.

Jani

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:47:34 GMT, "Jo B"
 blethered:

>{gah, brain fart, dunno what to snip}
>"Halla"  wrote in message
>news:em04p39eej1irv659c3rl2jrrm2qvadbvv@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:04:22 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
<snip>
>> >Do you know of any religion which doesn't include folklore, though?
>> >
>>
>> Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
>> case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
>> swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
>> sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
>> think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.
>>
>> >>
>> >> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
>> >> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
>> >> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
>> >> humans.
>> >
>> >Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?
>>
>> It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
>> been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
>> religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
>> Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
>> back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
>> turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
>> do stuff like that without realising.
>>
>> I was about to say that we've stuck folklore in amber now and that
>> tales aren't changing in the same ways, but that's nonsense actually.
>
>Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth from
>a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes 

Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?

>and how
>personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
>personal mythologies. 

Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people recognising
their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather than
not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?

>I saw a few links in this book with Freudian
>Psychodynamic approaches, Transactional Analysis concepts of life scripts
>and Games. Also quite obviously draws significantly on Jungian theory.
>
>I was inspired to look into this a bit further and was thinking up a thesis
>of sorts - still in its infancy, nay foetus-hood, but developing with
>thought, debate and consideration.
>

Keep us posted. :-)


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:25:38 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:em04p39eej1irv659c3rl2jrrm2qvadbvv@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:04:22 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>news:lsr9o3him74t7qnc3e2qs9frk3i5rqpavs@4ax.com...
>[]
>
>
>>>>>> So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
>>>>>> an important human thing mind you...
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd say folklore is a part of religion - possibly an essential part?
>>>>
>>>> That rather sounds as if folklore has been swallowed by religion,
>>>> which I don't think is the case. Surely there's plenty of tales with
>>>> no reference to religion?
>>>
>>>Do you know of any religion which doesn't include folklore, though?
>>>
>>
>> Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
>> case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
>> swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
>> sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
>> think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.
>
>Do you define folklore as tales alone, or both tales and practices?
>

Well now, that I don't know. I'm beginning to wonder if folklore is
what 'savages' have, or 'the uneducated'. Is it a distinction of
colonialism and learning? Town living, sort of thing?

>>>>
>>>> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
>>>> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
>>>> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
>>>> humans.
>>>
>>>Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?
>>
>> It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
>> been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
>> religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
>> Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
>> back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
>> turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
>> do stuff like that without realising.
>
>Wouldn't the hero-myth or the spell be part of the pre-existing religion, 
>though? That is, relegated to folklore by the 'new' religion, 

I've been flicking through a world myth book (which I may hack large
quotes out of later, it's interesting), and one of the points it
raises is that older local gods may not just be supplanted by invaders
but actually be relegated to the role of evildoer by them. So not even
necessarily relegated to folklore - *called* folklore maybe.

>but not seen 
>as folklore by its original believers / practitioners?

One of the parts of this book I'm reading (which I can't recall the
name of, obviously) mentions how some groups in Africa happily, in
fact eagerly, colluded with various incoming groups to drum their own
gods out of their heads. 

>
>> I was about to say that we've stuck folklore in amber now and that
>> tales aren't changing in the same ways, but that's nonsense actually.
>
>I know what you mean. Thing is, if you're in the middle of the changes as 
>they happen, you don't really notice them *as* changes, IYSWIM.

Yep. Even a state of change can look as if nothign is happening, as it
were.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>folklore the same as myth? -
>>>>
>>>> I'd say no. <g>
>>>>
>>>> I'd say no *because* I see myth as man's way of explaining how the
>>>> world came to be, and folklore as lessons in how to live in it or how
>>>> to laugh at it. Which means I get slightly confused about Greek myth,
>>>> it has to be said, but then that's probably because I don't know it at
>>>> all and so don't know where it would fit with my rapid-construction
>>>> categories there. :-)
>>>
>>>That's an interesting way of defining 'em. Theory and practice? Or, the
>>>myths are "high" culture and the folklore is "low"?
>>
>> Hmm, perhaps not high and low. First and second? Oh I dunno. Myths
>> deal with what happened first, at any rate. Would be interesting to
>> know which were *told* first, though, myths or tales.
>
>Depends on the protagonists, perhaps. If you're trying to explain the 
>creation of the world, you have to invent gods. If you already have a local 
>tale of a chap who built a big boat and survived the river flooding when his 
>mates didn't, you've already got the bit of grit to start off the pearl. 
>Give it enough time, though, and *both* stories will be attributed to gods.

<nods> For instance the story of Adam and Eve, which when it got to
the Bible had the concept of shame added to it. There seem to be a few
tales with offspring of heavenly beings wanting to live on Earth but
then either breaking rules or growing past their boundaries and having
sex and death introduced to them as a result (or one as a result of
the other, anyway).

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but not the *only* part.  I think you have to
>>>>>take into account the community function of religion, as well as
>>>>>individual
>>>>>"spirituality" or "belief" or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> There is a community function in folklore as well, isn't there?
>>>
>>>Not the same as a religious infrastructure which has prohibitions and
>>>permissions, though.
>>
>> Well no, it doesn't have the same infrastructure but there are plenty
>> of tales which warn folk not to do $foo because Bad (and sometimes
>> hilarious) Things Will Happen. Not so sure about permissions.
>>
>> This is another reason why I think religion tried to occupy the
>> folklore niche (since I now appear to be thinking of religion and
>> folklore as species, like squirrels...), it serves the same functions
>> but codifies them, makes them formal. Upon that foundation rules and
>> permissions can be built, as can formal roles for the storytellers.
>> They can also take on other functions in a formal way.
>
>*nods* Again, I think it depends whether folklore is just stories (with a 
>moral?) or also praxis - folk-cures, folk-magic, etc. 

Hmm, or again whether some of the people responsible for cures etc.
end up in the stories making strange requests of wandering princes and
the like.

>And how much the 
>praxis relates to everyday life, the individual's relationship with the 
>community, etc.

Even how amusing the lore is - it won't all have been about learning I
suppose. <g>


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

[snip]
> >Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth
from
> >a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes
>
> Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?

Possibly - takes one out of the psychology debate and into the spirituality
debate. Are the archetypal entities part of us, external to us or created by
us? Altogether too much thinking for a Saturday for me. I'll think about it
again after several more cups of tea.

>
> >and how
> >personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
> >personal mythologies.
>
> Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people recognising
> their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather than
> not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?

Getting stuck in patterns, games and life scripts is part of what may be
said to be psychological distress. A person within this situation may not
even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out of
the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the wood
for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.

>
> >I saw a few links in this book with Freudian
> >Psychodynamic approaches, Transactional Analysis concepts of life scripts
> >and Games. Also quite obviously draws significantly on Jungian theory.
> >
> >I was inspired to look into this a bit further and was thinking up a
thesis
> >of sorts - still in its infancy, nay foetus-hood, but developing with
> >thought, debate and consideration.
> >
>
> Keep us posted. :-)

Hell aye :-D

Jo

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:12:35 GMT, "Jo B"
 blethered:

>
>[snip]
>> >Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth
>from
>> >a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes
>>
>> Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?
>
>Possibly - takes one out of the psychology debate and into the spirituality
>debate. Are the archetypal entities part of us, external to us or created by
>us? Altogether too much thinking for a Saturday for me. I'll think about it
>again after several more cups of tea.
>

Heh. Well my head hurts to begin with, so we may struggle with this
today. :-) 

I'm wondering what 'archetype' means now, and what it actually is.
Strikes me it's one of those words I sort of half know, from context.

>>
>> >and how
>> >personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
>> >personal mythologies.
>>
>> Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people recognising
>> their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather than
>> not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?
>
>Getting stuck in patterns, games and life scripts is part of what may be
>said to be psychological distress. 

Even if those are successful patterns games and life scripts? If the
script you are stuck reading brings health welath and happiness?

>A person within this situation may not
>even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out of
>the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the wood
>for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.

Yes, but can people feel that they are trapped in the wood once it's
pointed out where they are, when before that they didn't even see the
trees?

<snip>


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

"Halla"  wrote in message
news:2vhmp39vkq80e3o9dj9127lpjebhpe0qqe@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:12:35 GMT, "Jo B"
>  blethered:
>
> >
> >[snip]
> >> >Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth
> >from
> >> >a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes
> >>
> >> Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?
> >
> >Possibly - takes one out of the psychology debate and into the
spirituality
> >debate. Are the archetypal entities part of us, external to us or created
by
> >us? Altogether too much thinking for a Saturday for me. I'll think about
it
> >again after several more cups of tea.
> >
>
> Heh. Well my head hurts to begin with, so we may struggle with this
> today. :-)
>
> I'm wondering what 'archetype' means now, and what it actually is.
> Strikes me it's one of those words I sort of half know, from context.

Yeah I know what you mean *goes off to find a dictionary definition and sees
if it matches with own* Well sort of. Archetypes are blueprints, the
original pattern. *goes off to read some more on Jung*

> >>
> >> >and how
> >> >personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
> >> >personal mythologies.
> >>
> >> Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people recognising
> >> their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather than
> >> not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?
> >
> >Getting stuck in patterns, games and life scripts is part of what may be
> >said to be psychological distress.
>
> Even if those are successful patterns games and life scripts? If the
> script you are stuck reading brings health welath and happiness?

Well from a therapy point of view if theres nowt wrong theres no need to fix
it. I assumed the games were of the destructive variety and to be honest it
appears that most game playing is not helpful - although YMMV. Similarly
when discussing life scripts its only a problem if those invoved perceive a
problem.

>
> >A person within this situation may not
> >even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out of
> >the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the
wood
> >for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.
>
> Yes, but can people feel that they are trapped in the wood once it's
> pointed out where they are, when before that they didn't even see the
> trees?

Ummm, possibly (?) On the other hand if someone is perfectly happy and
hasn't asked for help then does anyone need to point out their perception of
the situation? Surely thats just mean.

Oh gack. Its late and all I can think of is kittens.

I'm gonna go sleep now and ponder this later.

Jo

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:19:14 GMT, "Jo B"
 blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message
>news:2vhmp39vkq80e3o9dj9127lpjebhpe0qqe@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:12:35 GMT, "Jo B"
>>  blethered:
>>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >> >Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at myth
>> >from
>> >> >a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes
>> >>
>> >> Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?
>> >
>> >Possibly - takes one out of the psychology debate and into the
>spirituality
>> >debate. Are the archetypal entities part of us, external to us or created
>by
>> >us? Altogether too much thinking for a Saturday for me. I'll think about
>it
>> >again after several more cups of tea.
>> >
>>
>> Heh. Well my head hurts to begin with, so we may struggle with this
>> today. :-)
>>
>> I'm wondering what 'archetype' means now, and what it actually is.
>> Strikes me it's one of those words I sort of half know, from context.
>
>Yeah I know what you mean *goes off to find a dictionary definition and sees
>if it matches with own* Well sort of. Archetypes are blueprints, the
>original pattern. *goes off to read some more on Jung*
>

It would make sense then that we keep finding and fitting archetypes -
after all, vertebrates all work off similar blueprints, why wouldn't
characters?

>> >>
>> >> >and how
>> >> >personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of our
>> >> >personal mythologies.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people recognising
>> >> their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather than
>> >> not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?
>> >
>> >Getting stuck in patterns, games and life scripts is part of what may be
>> >said to be psychological distress.
>>
>> Even if those are successful patterns games and life scripts? If the
>> script you are stuck reading brings health welath and happiness?
>
>Well from a therapy point of view if theres nowt wrong theres no need to fix
>it. I assumed the games were of the destructive variety and to be honest it
>appears that most game playing is not helpful - although YMMV. Similarly
>when discussing life scripts its only a problem if those invoved perceive a
>problem.

This is around the edge where I start to have a problem with therapy -
as a healing process it can be good, but there are some people who
seek therapy because they can afford to and want someone to listen to
them. There isn't necessarily anything wrong as such, but having
patterns and games pointed out to them may feed a feeling that there
*is*.

>
>>
>> >A person within this situation may not
>> >even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out of
>> >the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the
>wood
>> >for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.
>>
>> Yes, but can people feel that they are trapped in the wood once it's
>> pointed out where they are, when before that they didn't even see the
>> trees?
>
>Ummm, possibly (?) On the other hand if someone is perfectly happy and
>hasn't asked for help then does anyone need to point out their perception of
>the situation? Surely thats just mean.

Could be, but then we're people - we point stuff out all the time.
Therapy professionals aren't the only people who engage with the
innards of other folks minds, after all, although perhaps they're some
of the few who do so consciously and with care.

>
>Oh gack. Its late and all I can think of is kittens.

Sympathies. ;-) How's the critter anyway?

>
>I'm gonna go sleep now and ponder this later.

OK. <g>


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

"Halla"  wrote in message
news:c0irp3htc6joikoq58mdgj0bgom9ud0kon@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:19:14 GMT, "Jo B"
>  blethered:
>
> >
> >"Halla"  wrote in message
> >news:2vhmp39vkq80e3o9dj9127lpjebhpe0qqe@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:12:35 GMT, "Jo B"
> >>  blethered:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >Interesting read: Roselle Angwin "Riding the Dragon". It looks at
myth
> >> >from
> >> >> >a personal perspective seeing ourselves within the archetypes
> >> >>
> >> >> Isn't that why the(y/re) are archetypes?
> >> >
> >> >Possibly - takes one out of the psychology debate and into the
> >spirituality
> >> >debate. Are the archetypal entities part of us, external to us or
created
> >by
> >> >us? Altogether too much thinking for a Saturday for me. I'll think
about
> >it
> >> >again after several more cups of tea.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Heh. Well my head hurts to begin with, so we may struggle with this
> >> today. :-)
> >>
> >> I'm wondering what 'archetype' means now, and what it actually is.
> >> Strikes me it's one of those words I sort of half know, from context.
> >
> >Yeah I know what you mean *goes off to find a dictionary definition and
sees
> >if it matches with own* Well sort of. Archetypes are blueprints, the
> >original pattern. *goes off to read some more on Jung*
> >
>
> It would make sense then that we keep finding and fitting archetypes -
> after all, vertebrates all work off similar blueprints, why wouldn't
> characters?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >and how
> >> >> >personal therapeutic change might occur by changing the script of
our
> >> >> >personal mythologies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm. Do you think, then, that there's any danger of people
recognising
> >> >> their personal mythologies and then getting stuck with it, rather
than
> >> >> not knowing and bouncing around between different ones?
> >> >
> >> >Getting stuck in patterns, games and life scripts is part of what may
be
> >> >said to be psychological distress.
> >>
> >> Even if those are successful patterns games and life scripts? If the
> >> script you are stuck reading brings health welath and happiness?
> >
> >Well from a therapy point of view if theres nowt wrong theres no need to
fix
> >it. I assumed the games were of the destructive variety and to be honest
it
> >appears that most game playing is not helpful - although YMMV. Similarly
> >when discussing life scripts its only a problem if those invoved perceive
a
> >problem.
>
> This is around the edge where I start to have a problem with therapy -
> as a healing process it can be good, but there are some people who
> seek therapy because they can afford to and want someone to listen to
> them. There isn't necessarily anything wrong as such, but having
> patterns and games pointed out to them may feed a feeling that there
> *is*.

This may be true but that is not necessarily the fault of therapy but rather
those who are therapy junkies and practitioners who operate outside ethical
boundaries. From my own persoanl point of view I operate within the ethical
framework of the BACP (British association of counsellors and
psychotherapists) which has clear guidelines on non-maleficence - i.e. don't
do any harm. The example you offer would suggest an unethical therapist
causing harm to a client through unskilled practice. It would certainly
suggest to me a practitioner who wasn't working closely within supervision.

An ethical practitioner would not allow a client to continue in therapy if
it wasn't doing them any good. If they are a therapy junkie then it suggests
they are unwilling to engage with the real problem and continue to seek
attention. That in itself is game playing.

Its also a crying bloody shame that therapy is, on the whole, accessible
mainly to those with cash. This is one of the reasons why when I qualify I
will not only work in private practice but continue to offer my time to the
voluntary organisations I'm doing placements with. (Sod the grammar in that
last sentence)

But I'm digressing from the original point, probably, or not. Bah, head full
of kitten <G>


> >> >A person within this situation may not
> >> >even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out
of
> >> >the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the
> >wood
> >> >for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.
> >>
> >> Yes, but can people feel that they are trapped in the wood once it's
> >> pointed out where they are, when before that they didn't even see the
> >> trees?
> >
> >Ummm, possibly (?) On the other hand if someone is perfectly happy and
> >hasn't asked for help then does anyone need to point out their perception
of
> >the situation? Surely thats just mean.
>
> Could be, but then we're people - we point stuff out all the time.
> Therapy professionals aren't the only people who engage with the
> innards of other folks minds, after all, although perhaps they're some
> of the few who do so consciously and with care.

Jeez I would hope so - had some horror stories mind you. They have a
tendency to make me want to be a much better counsellor.

> >
> >Oh gack. Its late and all I can think of is kittens.
>
> Sympathies. ;-) How's the critter anyway?

Hee hee. Well as of the original post she had not arrived. As of now she has
been in our home for about 10 hours. She is totally a mummy's girl and has
been sleeping on me most of the evening. We may have to call her Fartacus
though on account of the extremely smelly emissions. Lordy but who'd have
thought such a small cute kitten could make such a large and nasty niff?

"Jo B"  wrote in message 
news:Lbunj.33997$a61.19441@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> Hee hee. Well as of the original post she had not arrived. As of now she 
> has
> been in our home for about 10 hours. She is totally a mummy's girl and has
> been sleeping on me most of the evening. We may have to call her Fartacus
> though on account of the extremely smelly emissions. Lordy but who'd have
> thought such a small cute kitten could make such a large and nasty niff?
>
>
I would.  For indeed, our young lady is commonly known not only as 7 (which 
is her name) but "SPOOON!" (in every knife drawer, there are some spoons) 
and by CD, as "SmellyBottomCat"...

She's a very loving little cat, though (7, not CD, who is not a cat in any 
way, though very loving)...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:05:12 -0000, "janet" 
blethered:

>
>"Jo B"  wrote in message 
>news:Lbunj.33997$a61.19441@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> Hee hee. Well as of the original post she had not arrived. As of now she 
>> has
>> been in our home for about 10 hours. She is totally a mummy's girl and has
>> been sleeping on me most of the evening. We may have to call her Fartacus
>> though on account of the extremely smelly emissions. Lordy but who'd have
>> thought such a small cute kitten could make such a large and nasty niff?
>>
>>
>I would.  For indeed, our young lady is commonly known not only as 7 (which 
>is her name) but "SPOOON!" (in every knife drawer, there are some spoons) 

heh

>and by CD, as "SmellyBottomCat"...

Must be related to my cat, who is apparently called Sky (but no one
really calls him that). He is sort of semi-longhaired and sometimes
smells like he was left damp at the bottom of the washing basket for a
week. 

>
>She's a very loving little cat, though (7, not CD, who is not a cat in any 
>way, though very loving)...
>

I'm glad you cleared that up. :-)

My cat eats feet. Rotter.


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:12:27 GMT, "Jo B"
 blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message
>news:c0irp3htc6joikoq58mdgj0bgom9ud0kon@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:19:14 GMT, "Jo B"
>>  blethered:
>>
>> >
>> >"Halla"  wrote in message
>> >news:2vhmp39vkq80e3o9dj9127lpjebhpe0qqe@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> >Well from a therapy point of view if theres nowt wrong theres no need to
>fix
>> >it. I assumed the games were of the destructive variety and to be honest
>it
>> >appears that most game playing is not helpful - although YMMV. Similarly
>> >when discussing life scripts its only a problem if those invoved perceive
>a
>> >problem.
>>
>> This is around the edge where I start to have a problem with therapy -
>> as a healing process it can be good, but there are some people who
>> seek therapy because they can afford to and want someone to listen to
>> them. There isn't necessarily anything wrong as such, but having
>> patterns and games pointed out to them may feed a feeling that there
>> *is*.
>
>This may be true but that is not necessarily the fault of therapy but rather
>those who are therapy junkies and practitioners who operate outside ethical
>boundaries. 

Do they though, or do they have a different set of boundaries? :-)

>From my own persoanl point of view I operate within the ethical
>framework of the BACP (British association of counsellors and
>psychotherapists) which has clear guidelines on non-maleficence - i.e. don't
>do any harm. 

I imagine any professional body will have similar guidelines. :-) None
of this is a dig at you or anyone hereabouts, by the way - just to be
clear. :-)

>The example you offer would suggest an unethical therapist
>causing harm to a client through unskilled practice. It would certainly
>suggest to me a practitioner who wasn't working closely within supervision.

You'll know more about the practices of practitioners, as it were. I
was thinking of the sort of therapist that seems to be becoming
slightly more common here, the 'paid ear'. I imagine they don't go
about intentionally causing harm either, perhaps it's more to do with
the sort of people who feel the need to pay money for counselling when
there is nothing wrong *as such*.

>
>An ethical practitioner would not allow a client to continue in therapy if
>it wasn't doing them any good. If they are a therapy junkie then it suggests
>they are unwilling to engage with the real problem and continue to seek
>attention. That in itself is game playing.

True.

>
>Its also a crying bloody shame that therapy is, on the whole, accessible
>mainly to those with cash. 

<nods> And some people with a lot of money who may think that they
want someone to whinge at, and they can afford that. 

>This is one of the reasons why when I qualify I
>will not only work in private practice but continue to offer my time to the
>voluntary organisations I'm doing placements with. (Sod the grammar in that
>last sentence)

You'll be busy. :-)

>
>But I'm digressing from the original point, probably, or not. Bah, head full
>of kitten <G>
>

Better than having a head full of cotton wool, or snot, or something.
:-)

>
>> >> >A person within this situation may not
>> >> >even recognise their patterns or, if they do, not be able to break out
>of
>> >> >the pattern behaviours without assistance. Its like you can't see the
>> >wood
>> >> >for the trees cos you're right in the middle of it.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but can people feel that they are trapped in the wood once it's
>> >> pointed out where they are, when before that they didn't even see the
>> >> trees?
>> >
>> >Ummm, possibly (?) On the other hand if someone is perfectly happy and
>> >hasn't asked for help then does anyone need to point out their perception
>of
>> >the situation? Surely thats just mean.
>>
>> Could be, but then we're people - we point stuff out all the time.
>> Therapy professionals aren't the only people who engage with the
>> innards of other folks minds, after all, although perhaps they're some
>> of the few who do so consciously and with care.
>
>Jeez I would hope so - had some horror stories mind you. They have a
>tendency to make me want to be a much better counsellor.

I'm not trying to imply anything here either, I'm merely trying to
skate round those sweeping generalisations. <g>

>
>> >
>> >Oh gack. Its late and all I can think of is kittens.
>>
>> Sympathies. ;-) How's the critter anyway?
>
>Hee hee. Well as of the original post she had not arrived. As of now she has
>been in our home for about 10 hours. She is totally a mummy's girl and has
>been sleeping on me most of the evening. We may have to call her Fartacus
>though on account of the extremely smelly emissions. Lordy but who'd have
>thought such a small cute kitten could make such a large and nasty niff?
>

<shrugs> Oh I dunno, doesn't surprise me so much. :-) Ours was a
stinker, but this was helped by us finishing the (rubbish) cat litter
from Spar that he arrived with and getting some fuller's earth stuff
instead. No residual stinks now - also he likes to wander about
outside so isn't in as often to make smells. He does like to walk
around on the extension roof though, which means sometimes we have to
let him into the house via the bathroom window.


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:a8g3q3pds7qgqoft5h3ifavmesril37bfm@4ax.com...

>
> Must be related to my cat, who is apparently called Sky (but no one
> really calls him that). He is sort of semi-longhaired and sometimes
> smells like he was left damp at the bottom of the washing basket for a
> week.
>

7 is called 7  - but we hold on to the right to put an "r" in the word 
should she ever be really dull...
>>
>>She's a very loving little cat, though (7, not CD, who is not a cat in any
>>way, though very loving)...
>>
>
> I'm glad you cleared that up. :-)
>
> My cat eats feet. Rotter.
>

Mine i sjust really affectionate.  At four am.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:07:38 -0000, "janet" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:a8g3q3pds7qgqoft5h3ifavmesril37bfm@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Must be related to my cat, who is apparently called Sky (but no one
>> really calls him that). He is sort of semi-longhaired and sometimes
>> smells like he was left damp at the bottom of the washing basket for a
>> week.
>>
>
>7 is called 7  - but we hold on to the right to put an "r" in the word 
>should she ever be really dull...

Heh.

>>>
>>>She's a very loving little cat, though (7, not CD, who is not a cat in any
>>>way, though very loving)...
>>>
>>
>> I'm glad you cleared that up. :-)
>>
>> My cat eats feet. Rotter.
>>
>
>Mine i sjust really affectionate.  At four am. 
>

Ah but of course. <g>

My cat mooed at me this morning. Strange thing to wake up to, but I
promise you it sounded more like 'moo' than 'miaow'. <:-/


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

Halla  wrote:

> My cat eats feet.

Whose?

Love ti eat them mousies
Mousies what I love to eat
Bite their tiny heads off
Nibble on their tiny feeet. (B. Kliran)
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:48:26 +0000, danspam@f2s.com (Daniel Cohen)
blethered:

>Halla  wrote:
>
>> My cat eats feet.
>
>Whose?

Any unwary human who walks past him (especially in bare feet). He
hasn't managed to catch any other sort of mammal yet.

>
>Love ti eat them mousies
>Mousies what I love to eat
>Bite their tiny heads off
>Nibble on their tiny feeet. (B. Kliran)

<:-)


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:sto4q3ln6r1lgj7dbhs6eukfjbpabj9v05@4ax.com...
>
> My cat mooed at me this morning. Strange thing to wake up to, but I
> promise you it sounded more like 'moo' than 'miaow'. <:-/
>
>

7 chirps.  There is no other word for it.

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:4snkp3d9h401ta9vhui399bqdhq70e9pcs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:25:38 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>news:em04p39eej1irv659c3rl2jrrm2qvadbvv@4ax.com...

[]

(gawds, I'm even later replying than I thought. Sorry, Halla :(


>>> Don't know my religions well enough, or world folklore, but in any
>>> case a religion including folklore is not the same as a religion
>>> swallowing up folklore, which is what I was saying the above statement
>>> sounded like. I think they both still exist, is all, and in fact I
>>> think religion is a more sophisticated, standardised form of folklore.
>>
>>Do you define folklore as tales alone, or both tales and practices?
>>
>
> Well now, that I don't know. I'm beginning to wonder if folklore is
> what 'savages' have, or 'the uneducated'. Is it a distinction of
> colonialism and learning? Town living, sort of thing?

How about the distinction between "we do this because it works" and "we do 
this because we know how it works"? I'm thinking of folk-cures vs mainstream 
medicine here, really, but it could probably be applied more widely ...

>
>>>>>
>>>>> From that bit in the intro. above I formed an idea that religion was
>>>>> 'grown-up' folklore, what it did when it became formalised, or what
>>>>> happened when it dug in to the 'folklore niche' in the brains of
>>>>> humans.
>>>>
>>>>Hmm. Religion manipulates folklore, perhaps?
>>>
>>> It could do. Or people manipulate folklore - where once it might have
>>> been a local*ish) hero fighting off the bad foe, it might develop a
>>> religious element when a particular religion arrives in the area.
>>> Someone might have uttered a spell of some sort to send the bogeyman
>>> back to wherever he came from, when Big Religion arrived it might have
>>> turned into a prayer or something similar. It's probable that people
>>> do stuff like that without realising.
>>
>>Wouldn't the hero-myth or the spell be part of the pre-existing religion,
>>though? That is, relegated to folklore by the 'new' religion,
>
> I've been flicking through a world myth book (which I may hack large
> quotes out of later, it's interesting), and one of the points it
> raises is that older local gods may not just be supplanted by invaders
> but actually be relegated to the role of evildoer by them. So not even
> necessarily relegated to folklore - *called* folklore maybe.

An evildoer would have power, or at least potential power, though, whereas 
"part of foklore" kind of implies quaintness and no real ability to actually 
do anything. Like, the difference between a horned god who "becomes" Satan, 
and a horned god who's just an interesting archaeological curiosity.

>
>>but not seen
>>as folklore by its original believers / practitioners?
>
> One of the parts of this book I'm reading (which I can't recall the
> name of, obviously) mentions how some groups in Africa happily, in
> fact eagerly, colluded with various incoming groups to drum their own
> gods out of their heads.

You can see a similar thing now, in the African pentecostal churches who 
drive out supposed "witches" (usually children) from the community. The 
witchcraft element is linked with the old gods, old traditions and old 
kinship networks, which have to be excised.

[]

>>>>That's an interesting way of defining 'em. Theory and practice? Or, the
>>>>myths are "high" culture and the folklore is "low"?
>>>
>>> Hmm, perhaps not high and low. First and second? Oh I dunno. Myths
>>> deal with what happened first, at any rate. Would be interesting to
>>> know which were *told* first, though, myths or tales.
>>
>>Depends on the protagonists, perhaps. If you're trying to explain the
>>creation of the world, you have to invent gods. If you already have a 
>>local
>>tale of a chap who built a big boat and survived the river flooding when 
>>his
>>mates didn't, you've already got the bit of grit to start off the pearl.
>>Give it enough time, though, and *both* stories will be attributed to 
>>gods.
>
> <nods> For instance the story of Adam and Eve, which when it got to
> the Bible had the concept of shame added to it. There seem to be a few
> tales with offspring of heavenly beings wanting to live on Earth but
> then either breaking rules or growing past their boundaries and having
> sex and death introduced to them as a result (or one as a result of
> the other, anyway).

Gilgamesh :)


>>>>>>but not the *only* part.  I think you have to
>>>>>>take into account the community function of religion, as well as
>>>>>>individual
>>>>>>"spirituality" or "belief" or whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a community function in folklore as well, isn't there?
>>>>
>>>>Not the same as a religious infrastructure which has prohibitions and
>>>>permissions, though.
>>>
>>> Well no, it doesn't have the same infrastructure but there are plenty
>>> of tales which warn folk not to do $foo because Bad (and sometimes
>>> hilarious) Things Will Happen. Not so sure about permissions.
>>>
>>> This is another reason why I think religion tried to occupy the
>>> folklore niche (since I now appear to be thinking of religion and
>>> folklore as species, like squirrels...), it serves the same functions
>>> but codifies them, makes them formal. Upon that foundation rules and
>>> permissions can be built, as can formal roles for the storytellers.
>>> They can also take on other functions in a formal way.
>>
>>*nods* Again, I think it depends whether folklore is just stories (with a
>>moral?) or also praxis - folk-cures, folk-magic, etc.
>
> Hmm, or again whether some of the people responsible for cures etc.
> end up in the stories making strange requests of wandering princes and
> the like.
>
>>And how much the
>>praxis relates to everyday life, the individual's relationship with the
>>community, etc.
>
> Even how amusing the lore is - it won't all have been about learning I
> suppose. <g>

Yeah, all the trickster stories are funny. Well, in a black-humour-ish sort 
of way.

Jani