From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #30 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, February 7 2000 Volume 02 : Number 030 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: os/list administration ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: stillpt-digest V2 #29 ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] b / tv guide & speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 10:05:12 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: os/list administration Meredith asked for private votes, but I'd like my amplification of the reasons I brought this up to be available for others to read: In a sense, I don't really care whether the list has a "reply to" or not: I haven't forgotten to change the address on my own messages; and one can always hit "reply to all recipients" and it goes to the list with a second copy to the original poster. (I know some people do this, because I've gotten two copies of some posts replying to mine.) I suggested this because I noted that some other people have had trouble dealing with this, and have accidentally sent messages intended for the list just to the single person being replied to. Somebody uptopic asked who it was who'd been doing this, but they must not have been watching closely (which is quite understandable), because there have been 3 or 4 cases that I can recall of follow-up messages rectifying the original errors. I hadn't realized there was a deliberate reason to avoid "reply to" -- when I read a message from a list, my instinct is to assume my reply will also go to that list, so if my reply is private, that's when I change the header; and I assume that others think the same way, or this problem wouldn't have come up. However, if this discussion alerts people to the necessity of changing headers or of hitting "reply all", then if it's preferred to keep the setup the way it is, then the problem will still be solved, and I for one will be content. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:28:10 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #29 Donald writes, > Jennifer: Thanks for the quick precis of the =scientia= ... you've given me an > idea of the > ambit of the various disciplines. (Basically seems like the same > sort of guys doing slightly different things at different times, but > overlapping.) Exactly. But ... > I was trying to get an idea of whether I really need > to hare off in those several directions. If I decide to dip my toe > in, your hint about that other Yates book will be helpful. The > problem I've been finding is that along the way I've come across at > least a half-dozen areas where I could stop and devote the rest of > my life to the study. Donald, for pete's sake! even grups read ninety kinds of books. You're not deciding what to do with the rest of your life, just whether to read a certain book! > I found myself saying to someone recently that =almost= everything > Jung says makes sense to me; but I have to lean on that "almost" a > little. Don't forget also that, like Freudians vs. Freud, Jung himself was a lot more moderate and reasonable than Jungians are. =They= are often literary critics trying to make or keep tenure. And you know what =those= guys are like. ; ) > lord knows what Graves thought =he= was up to Graves was a poet. Even WG was a work of poetry in his opinion, which is a good thing, because it ain't scholarship. However, I'd ask you this question: does your work, which seems to be exploring cultural phenomena which "hard" science doesn't even like to admit exist except as some kind of meaningless effluvia--TV shows and music u.s.w.--does your study of them have to be a science? This is where Carruthers might be of use to you, in the sense of validating your own approach (and that of every other syncretist), by showing how a thousand years+ of earlier thinkers =gave themselves permission= to believe, at least provisionally, in psychic phenomena, and very much in emotion, and "prudentia", and other (to them) quite discrete and valid considerations. After the survey of psychology afforded by two master's degrees in chop-shop psychotherapy in the late 70s early 80s, I have to say that "magic" -- more exactly, the anatomy of the invisible body as used by Medieval thought -- is a darned sight more =functional= than any modern psychological model I've seen. It's more coherent, more comprehensive, and what's convincing is, it works. What's bizarre to me is dividing people up, not into id, ego, superego, or mind and body, or neurological/visceral/skeletal/lymphatic/whatamIforgetting, but into divisions like heart, prudence, soul, spirit, limbs, pneuma, and memory. What's goofy is, the last one works, once you know what all the definitions are and fiddle with 'em a while. > In fact, the only major difference between > those three and rough contemporaries like Tolkien or Eddison or > Austin Tappan Wright (of =Islandia=)--or Ezra Pound in his =Cantos=- > - -is that the latter group =knew- they were making stuff up. The Medievals would not have "making stuff up;" they would have said, "discovered." Any creative person will tell you that their best ideas aren't constructed but discovered. Read Carruthers' THE CRAFT OF THOUGHT. > The Jung piece I'm working my way through right now is =The > Psychology of the Transference=, which attempts to describe the > analyst/patient relationship in psychoanalysis in terms of the > alchemical symbolism of the =coniunctio= (or "chymical wedding"). > It's wacky stuff. Transference/countertransference stuff drives me crazy. The whole relationship of therapist to client in analysis is, IMO, unclean. It's special to analysis, in that other therapeutic relationships are more workmanlike, more directed, and less exploratory (as in, "exploratory surgery"). While I believe analysis is successful for many people, I still think the relationship is unclean, as in "indecent", and I think analyzing its effect on the analysand and on the analyst is a bit like an Inquisitor obsessing about the fine points of his "id" development in connection with his work. It's icky. They shouldn't be doing it. > that is to > say, although the whole method of generating new characters seems to be by > exfoliating them from Buffy (or parts of her psyche) Oh, groovy term, Don! Did that come out of a Jungian crit book, or did you make it up? - -Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 13:12:55 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b / tv guide & speculations I looked at the TV Guide in the grocery store, and the logline was less suggestive than the text of the half-page BUFFY ad, which said something like ... {spoiler space if you consider even this too much spoiler} ... "Buffy may be about to fall in love ... with her worst enemy." "Worst enemy" probably PR hyperbole, but still it suggests some interesting twists in the Riley arc. It also suggests to me possible parallels with the Willow / Tara arc. Or, put it this way, if Willow / Tara plays a role in the upcoming ep at all, I will consider it to be a bit of confirmation of my speculations about where that subplot is headed. I suddenly remember the "triangle" of Buffy / Faith / Willow last year, and how Willow felt pushed out by "Slayers Only." Wonder if there will be a parallel with this triangle.... Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #30 ****************************