[UA] Question

[Eric Brennan]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Handley" <tom at generalandmedical.co.uk>
>> (Of course this doesn't mesh with Bill having a 55%, but you can either
>> ignore this, chalk it up as an error, or give some leniency for avatars
of
>>the Fool).
> |
>
> Why leniancy for just the fool? Ceratin architypes (The Masterless Man and
> the Savage) seem to be things you could simply _be_ rather than paths you
> have to follow. Is this not how people assend to the IC, they live their
> life in a way that is so architipical that they come to embody a part of
> human conciousness?
>
I agree.  I figure that an archetype has to be something so common and
entrenched into human consciousness that you could follow it without
intent--look at them: the Merchant, the Masterless Man, the Flying Woman;
none of these need any knowledge of the Occult Underground or history to
follow.  I know a dozen or so car salesman who, guaran-damn-teed, would be
walking the path of the Merchant if such a thing existed; the Flying Woman
is a common enough archetype if you just look at women escaping from bad
relationships (or watch Lifetime...)
    Now, the Mystic Hermaphrodite doesn't seem to follow this logic at
first, but if you watch Ricky or Jerry with any frequency, you see the
strange fascination Joe Average has for trannies and such.  Then you can
trace that back to the role of transvestitism in, say, Voodoo; also the
strange change of identity that goes with a man putting on a dress; the
weird fascination for she-males in the stranger regions of the porn
industry.
    To sum up: I would maintain for it to be an Archetype at all it has to
be a path that countless people are walking every day, without knowing it.
    Eric "Fool" Brennan
____________________________________________
"Tonight's ECW has been brought to you by the only network without indoor
plumbing: TNN"


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua