James Hillman on Fidelity, from "Senex & Puer." www.DepthVideo.com
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- www.depthvideo.com. James Hillman gave a two-day seminar April 16-18, 2010 in California on the topic of the Senex & Puer archetypes. The full DVD of this landmark talk is available at www.depthvideo.com
@DrJim55 What he was pointing out was the idea that someone who is not faithful to a marriage may be faithful to something else - their lust, their desire for romance, their desire for attention they don't get in the marriage. Understanding this may help them work out why they are being 'unfaithful' to the marriage and 'faithful' to something else. It is merely understanding that people are faithful to a lot of things in their unfaithfulness. Not that it is ideal.
Excelent point made. Thank you for uploading!
I remember reading jung's nietzsche seminar and him saying that part of the purpose of placing jesus in the center of a marriage is to provide a kind of barrier to protect them from a collision of their anima and animus. Like some way of preventing an intolerable experience of opposite forces.
@DrJim55 Life changes. The Bible has changed, the old and the new testaments are different. It used to be stone people and an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Then it was love people. Seems like religion has evolved and should continue to evolve. Catholics had all the power for a while or most of it. Then Luther shook things up. Religion continues to evolve. Understanding ideas about psychology can help religions evolve vs. be a threat. Christianity brought change. Life changes.
he probably shouldn't have in the first place...many people do it because they think they're "supposed" to
perhaps...considering he calls it a "marriage thing" right out of the gate. can't say i disagree with him...
qed sewwwwwwwwa
you lose me there...i think marriage itself isn't for everyone, gay or straight...but everyone should have the right to do it if they choose to. but people should stop pretending to be something they're not (i.e., monogamous)...
what argument? all you've succeeded in doing is sounding homophobic...