That "these inner forces assert themselves no matter what we do" is an insight that seems counterintuitive at first. How can science be a means and not a barrier to the expression of archetypal stories that nurture the human spirit? Does science tell those stories in a vitiated, distorted way, bereft as they are of a spiritual element? But I'm missing the point. I suppose my initial resistance to such an insight reflects how totalizing the separation between the so-called humanities and the sciences has become in our age. I've just been conditioned to think that telling stories and doing science are two irreconcilable, mutually hostile activities. Maybe such an insight could help inspire a paradigm shift in the way society thinks about the role and value of religion and the spiritual life that we desperately need. How does one become open-minded to such an insight that, when uttered, tends to be universally dismissed? I mean, meditating on this insight I swear I can feel the geography of my inner world changing, expanding; but to talk about this stuff with loved ones is another matter, because they tend to greet such ideas with casual dismissal or outright hostility. It's remarkable how often the truth that science and religion are tied together is greeted with contempt, almost like it's a personal insult.
Aye. Science has heroes and hero quests and holy grails. Science promises both safety and salvation. It cannot help but participate in the divine comedy. The archetypes wear science clothes and science faces. In a way, they are renewed through the scientific paradigm. Science fiction is an overt example of how the typoi and mythoi of old find new expression.
That "these inner forces assert themselves no matter what we do" is an insight that seems counterintuitive at first. How can science be a means and not a barrier to the expression of archetypal stories that nurture the human spirit? Does science tell those stories in a vitiated, distorted way, bereft as they are of a spiritual element? But I'm missing the point. I suppose my initial resistance to such an insight reflects how totalizing the separation between the so-called humanities and the sciences has become in our age. I've just been conditioned to think that telling stories and doing science are two irreconcilable, mutually hostile activities. Maybe such an insight could help inspire a paradigm shift in the way society thinks about the role and value of religion and the spiritual life that we desperately need. How does one become open-minded to such an insight that, when uttered, tends to be universally dismissed? I mean, meditating on this insight I swear I can feel the geography of my inner world changing, expanding; but to talk about this stuff with loved ones is another matter, because they tend to greet such ideas with casual dismissal or outright hostility. It's remarkable how often the truth that science and religion are tied together is greeted with contempt, almost like it's a personal insult.
Aye. Science has heroes and hero quests and holy grails. Science promises both safety and salvation. It cannot help but participate in the divine comedy. The archetypes wear science clothes and science faces. In a way, they are renewed through the scientific paradigm. Science fiction is an overt example of how the typoi and mythoi of old find new expression.