Between seeing Yankee Athonite's recent post responding to a criticism of Jonathan Pageau, and then a twitter thread Pageau approvingly reposted comparing Beatrix Potter's use of animals and Richard Scarry's[^1], I thought it might be a good time to try briefly to put into words *one* of the general problems I have with Christian use of what we might call the archetypal-symbolic approach to philosophical and cultural analysis.
Appreciate this perspective. Much more so than the uncharitable Whitley essays. Just as a curiosity, have you listened to any of the more recent dialogues between JP/Paul Kingsnorth? Paul’s Erasmus lecture was a critique in line with some of what you’re saying here, especially regarding Peterson and hierarchy. He and JP wrestle with it fruitfully, I think, in a recent convo. Definitely worth checking out.
I haven't. I have a bit of mixed feelings about Kingsnorth based on what I've read, but I've heard a lot of good things about his Erasmus lecture. I've been meaning to check it out, especially as I think more about political theology. Thanks for the reminder.
And any time you want to write a Christian defence of Richard Scarry, please do go ahead! The evernescent, carnivalesque joy of Scarry has great vitality and vivifying foolishness.
I could not agree more. But rather than enlarging on that here, I will instead offer a link to a (short!) text of mine, written several years ago, on this very theme.https://3wisdoms.com/2018/01/03/images-and-symbols/
I’ve got several issues with the likes of Peterson and Pageau, but my main ones are that they steadfastly refuse to do the Jungian/perennialist thing in a responsible, critical way. But of course they don’t: for both, they have an axe to grind for which the systems they construct are but turning wheels.
I think the ultimate difficulty we face is partly articulated by you in how symbolic archetypal thinking based on the evidence presented by this fallen world can come into dissonance with the world as it should be—paradise, the kingdom of God that is not of this world. But I have to admit pageau and even much of Peterson is not that off or rather has some grounding even if it oversimplifies things. Given, I’m highly sympathetic here with what you’re saying. Peterson’s implicit and explicit connection of his thought with worldly success as a definite good is completely irreconcilable with Christianity. But I think the part about conservative conspiracy theories, isn’t as much do to symbolic or archetypal thinking—think of the Logos and the logoi of Maximus; they are hidden to a degree but our world still gestures toward a fundamental logic—rather I would say that the problem is the same issue realistically any finished or closed epistemic framework (conservative or liberal or symbolic) presents us with—the inability to have epistemic humility. Epistemic humility requires a constant stance of learning and having my ideas and opinions brought into question. You can be a genius with an encyclopedic perspective like DBH or whoever, but to ever think I have finished, I have it figured out, now I can sit here comfortably knowing everything, is to open yourself to a terribly debilitating pride. It’s better in my opinion to be like Kierkegaard or even Kant in some respects (as much as I hate to admit it) then to reify some ultimate system as explanatory of everything and univocally apply it to how things really are, etc.. this is why in my minds Maximus the confessor was as spot on and comprehensive as he was; why?—because after giving his brilliant interpretation of a difficult passage in scripture or of Gregory the theologian, he tells the one he is writing to often unless you can come up with a better interpretation. Just a thought.
I really appreciate the idea that “universal archetypes might show that certain hierarchies are built into the *fallen* world.” The best way I’ve seen this illustrated recently was in Hart’s novel Kenogaia where the orderly, mechanistic, clockwork world and its corresponding religious-political authority certainly are operating on a lower plane. Have you read it?
There is nothing that Jung’s theory of archetypes can do that isn’t better done by Neoplatonic theories of forms and paradigms. Pageau shows some basic knowledge of Neoplatonism. But his views have too much of a Jungian aspect to them.
Appreciate this perspective. Much more so than the uncharitable Whitley essays. Just as a curiosity, have you listened to any of the more recent dialogues between JP/Paul Kingsnorth? Paul’s Erasmus lecture was a critique in line with some of what you’re saying here, especially regarding Peterson and hierarchy. He and JP wrestle with it fruitfully, I think, in a recent convo. Definitely worth checking out.
I haven't. I have a bit of mixed feelings about Kingsnorth based on what I've read, but I've heard a lot of good things about his Erasmus lecture. I've been meaning to check it out, especially as I think more about political theology. Thanks for the reminder.
Beautiful thoughts, beautifully put, for which I am deeply grateful.
And any time you want to write a Christian defence of Richard Scarry, please do go ahead! The evernescent, carnivalesque joy of Scarry has great vitality and vivifying foolishness.
I could not agree more. But rather than enlarging on that here, I will instead offer a link to a (short!) text of mine, written several years ago, on this very theme.https://3wisdoms.com/2018/01/03/images-and-symbols/
I’ve got several issues with the likes of Peterson and Pageau, but my main ones are that they steadfastly refuse to do the Jungian/perennialist thing in a responsible, critical way. But of course they don’t: for both, they have an axe to grind for which the systems they construct are but turning wheels.
I think the ultimate difficulty we face is partly articulated by you in how symbolic archetypal thinking based on the evidence presented by this fallen world can come into dissonance with the world as it should be—paradise, the kingdom of God that is not of this world. But I have to admit pageau and even much of Peterson is not that off or rather has some grounding even if it oversimplifies things. Given, I’m highly sympathetic here with what you’re saying. Peterson’s implicit and explicit connection of his thought with worldly success as a definite good is completely irreconcilable with Christianity. But I think the part about conservative conspiracy theories, isn’t as much do to symbolic or archetypal thinking—think of the Logos and the logoi of Maximus; they are hidden to a degree but our world still gestures toward a fundamental logic—rather I would say that the problem is the same issue realistically any finished or closed epistemic framework (conservative or liberal or symbolic) presents us with—the inability to have epistemic humility. Epistemic humility requires a constant stance of learning and having my ideas and opinions brought into question. You can be a genius with an encyclopedic perspective like DBH or whoever, but to ever think I have finished, I have it figured out, now I can sit here comfortably knowing everything, is to open yourself to a terribly debilitating pride. It’s better in my opinion to be like Kierkegaard or even Kant in some respects (as much as I hate to admit it) then to reify some ultimate system as explanatory of everything and univocally apply it to how things really are, etc.. this is why in my minds Maximus the confessor was as spot on and comprehensive as he was; why?—because after giving his brilliant interpretation of a difficult passage in scripture or of Gregory the theologian, he tells the one he is writing to often unless you can come up with a better interpretation. Just a thought.
Archetypal thinking always seems suspiciously Kantian to me...
I really appreciate the idea that “universal archetypes might show that certain hierarchies are built into the *fallen* world.” The best way I’ve seen this illustrated recently was in Hart’s novel Kenogaia where the orderly, mechanistic, clockwork world and its corresponding religious-political authority certainly are operating on a lower plane. Have you read it?
There is nothing that Jung’s theory of archetypes can do that isn’t better done by Neoplatonic theories of forms and paradigms. Pageau shows some basic knowledge of Neoplatonism. But his views have too much of a Jungian aspect to them.
😴