Overheard from a conversation next door

[Thomas]

I have been following the @DerekhHikmah and @Craz conversation with sheer joy and delight.

A comment was made which sparked something, but I did not wish to interrupt the flow, so I have posted here.

In No Time to Be Brief: A Scientific Biography of Wolfgang Pauli, he (Pauli) is quoted as writing ... "In opposition to the monotheist religions – but in unison with the mysticism of all peoples, including the Jewish mysticism – I believe that the ultimate reality is not personal."

This poses a question, as to how he agrees with 'Jewish mysticism' while at the same time opposing Jewish monotheism?

I would suspect by 'monotheism' he means the cataphatic (positive) expressions of the Divine Nature, whilst by the "mysticisms of all peoples" he means those apophatic expressions. I would point out that all traditions have their apophatic and cataphatic expressions in tandem, and the apophatic will always be the more discreet.

This is not a critique of Pauli, but rather evidences a viewpoint of the 1950s.

 

[Thomas]

I was going to write more on Pauli's comments in No Time to be Brief, but have elected not to.

To do Pauli justice would require more insight into his thinking, and as he seems to be heavily influenced by Jung, then we'd have to look at Jung as well ...

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I have been following the @DerekhHikmah and @Craz conversation with sheer joy and delight.

Lol, I have been wondering what other people must be thinking that read that convo.

This poses a question, as to how he agrees with 'Jewish mysticism' while at the same time opposing Jewish monotheism?

I would suspect by 'monotheism' he means the cataphatic (positive) expressions of the Divine Nature, whilst by the "mysticisms of all peoples" he means those apophatic expressions. I would point out that all traditions have their apophatic and cataphatic expressions in tandem, and the apophatic will always be the more discreet.

This is not a critique of Pauli, but rather evidences a viewpoint of the 1950s

Yeah, that quote is interesting. I don't know much about Pauli beyond the information on his Wikipedia page, but just from that, he had Jewish ancestry but was raised Roman Catholic but ends up a genius in science. Considering how he grew up, his thought as an adult has that sort of enlightenment-era deistic leanings in it.

In his early 30s gets around Jung, the psychologist, and this is where things get interesting. Like you mention we would have to get deep into Jung's beliefs, but to summarize Jung briefly, he was walking a sort of tightrope trying to be a psychologist and taken seriously in science and academia and probably trying to not start some sort of religious movement or cult. So, he walks a line where he points to what can be demonstrated empirically in the psyche but refrains from giving any metaphysical speculation beyond that, often claiming to leave that to theologians.

I would imagine the experience of archetypal material obviously touched Pauli, probably opening him up to considering mysticism in some sort of way. but I would assume the ontological status of the Biblical arc of history and the miracles, etc., perhaps felt like a bridge too far for the sort of 20th century scientific mindset he was enculturated into. He was not a philosopher, and Jung claims to not be one as well, (although that is debatable in Jung's later writings), either way that is yet a different domain than inner experience or material science.

Pauli as a physicist, is looking at the most abstract and fundamental building blocks of creation, so the fact that his image of God appears as impersonal is understandable. Like you mentioned, Jewish mysticism also has God partly defined by his absolute unknowability, Ein Sof, so that is there as well. Pauli and Jung did go into synchronicity, so perhaps they were each trying to begin grasping for some sort of intellectual justification for deeper metaphysical relation to this sort of dimension of existence. Pauli died at 58 so his thought could have evolved further in his later years, it began to do so for Jung in his 80s in this area, so it would have been interesting to see where he ended up if he lived longer.

 

[Thomas]

In his early 30s gets around Jung, the psychologist, and this is where things get interesting. Like you mention we would have to get deep into Jung's beliefs, but to summarize Jung briefly, he was walking a sort of tightrope trying to be a psychologist and taken seriously in science and academia and probably trying to not start some sort of religious movement or cult. So, he walks a line where he points to what can be demonstrated empirically in the psyche but refrains from giving any metaphysical speculation beyond that, often claiming to leave that to theologians.

Yes. The few theologians I have looked at see Jung as a sound psychologist but a poor metaphysician.

... perhaps felt like a bridge too far for the sort of 20th century scientific mindset he was enculturated into.

Probably.

Someone I read commented on a line from Jung to Joseph Campbell, the latter being even more 'secular' or metaphysically myopic with regard to the interpretation of archetype, myth and symbol ... but then the natural course of the West tends ever towards the surface and the ephemeral.

A commentator on the history of animation pointed out that in Europe, animation became a tool of exploring profound humanist ideas (and nightmares), of Jan Švankmajer, whereas America gave us Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse.

Actually, that person I alluded to offered a line from Jung to Campbell to George Lucas (Star Wars).

The West gave us Star Wars, Close Encounters and E.T. The East gave us Solaris and Stalker.

I know I'm offering extremes, but such is the way of things. Kurosawa made Seven Samurai. Hollywood made The Magnificent Seven.

 

[wil]

I know I'm offering extremes, but such is the way of things. Kurosawa made Seven Samurai. Hollywood made The Magnificent Seven.

I would like to suggest beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what is said about anything says more about the speaker than the topic.

The classic western The Magnificent Seven serves as a profound allegory for personal transformation, community, and the spiritual evolution of the individual.
1. The Alchemy of Selflessness
At the start, the gunslingers are driven by ego and survival... but by choosing to defend a helpless village for virtually no pay, they undergo a metaphysical shift... moving from isolation to purpose-driven unity.
The Lesson: True fulfillment is discovered when you channel your unique strengths into something greater than yourself...
2. Interconnectedness and Community
The film illustrates the breakdown of isolation... these disparate, flawed fighters and the villagers initially view each other as outsiders. Through shared struggle, they realize their destinies are completely intertwined...
The Lesson: We are not isolated islands... real strength is cultivated through vulnerability, mutual reliance, and our shared humanity.
3. Legacy and Transcendence
The movie’s famous closing line notes that only the villagers truly win... while the fighters remain like the wind, blowing over the land. Metaphysically, this highlights the transience of worldly ambition... versus the permanence of what we cultivate.
The Lesson: True legacy does not belong to the conqueror... it belongs to those who plant seeds, build foundations, and sustain life.

The characters, situations, archetypes we focus on all our choices based on our interpretations of whatever eh?

 

[DerekhHikmah]

Someone I read commented on a line from Jung to Joseph Campbell, the latter being even more 'secular' or metaphysically myopic with regard to the interpretation of archetype, myth and symbol ... but then the natural course of the West tends ever towards the surface and the ephemeral.

A commentator on the history of animation pointed out that in Europe, animation became a tool of exploring profound humanist ideas (and nightmares), of Jan Švankmajer, whereas America gave us Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse.

Actually, that person I alluded to offered a line from Jung to Campbell to George Lucas (Star Wars).

The West gave us Star Wars, Close Encounters and E.T. The East gave us Solaris and Stalker.

I know I'm offering extremes, but such is the way of things. Kurosawa made Seven Samurai. Hollywood made The Magnificent Seven.

I had to look up Jan Švankmajer, Solaris and stalker, I forget a world exists outside of America lol.

I think the West thinks about what can make money, and that's all. If medieval theology helped make better movies people would line up to study it.

 

[Thomas]

I would like to suggest beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what is said about anything says more about the speaker than the topic.

Quite likely.

The classic western The Magnificent Seven serves as a profound allegory for personal transformation, community, and the spiritual evolution of the individual.

All derived directly from Kurosawa.

 

[wil]

derived directly from Kurosawa.

Of course...we are american...the office, absolutely fabulous, all in the family...we colonize everything...ya taught us well!

 

[Thomas]

Hill Street Blues was good, and you did that!

My 'better 'arf' is currently ploughing through The Pitt.

 

[RabbiO]

@Thomas -

In my opinion, your opinion of, your condescending attitude toward, American films compared to those of other countries is misguided, but you are entitled to that opinion.

 

[Thomas]

Rightly rebuked, and I apologise ... there are some very, very good American films, and directors that rank among the very best.

I'm hoping some might join in with their own lists over on the Media/Movies board.