Alright, he's giving the Spark Notes version of the Bhagavad Gita. I'm not really qualified to assess his reading of the Gita, but I don't have a lot of confidence given how badly he mauled the ancient texts I do have the expertise to assess.
-
-
So, to conclude this thread for tonight, I think Pressfield has been very badly served by his theoretical framework. He's shaving the corners off of square blocks to make them fit into a round hole which was never very well made in the first place.
Näytä tämä ketju -
And really what is going on here is that he is mobilizing a form of history, badly bent in order to try to fit his modern model of (unhealthy) masculinity (he thinks it is gender neutral, but it's not and Jung of all people would tell him that - as does the book he's citing)...
Näytä tämä ketju -
...and then present that model as timeless when it isn't! The one thing that emerges almost instantly with any serious cross-cultural study of masculinity is that it is often very different, culture to culture and period to period. There are some common elements to be sure...
Näytä tämä ketju -
...but not *these* elements or ideas or really anything so specific. He's taking Ideal Modern Marine Man and presenting it as equivalent to Ideal Roman Man, or Ideal Early Christian Man, or Ideal Greek Man. And it simply wasn't.
Näytä tämä ketju -
And what bothers me the most is I bet many viewers of these things will take both the badly mauled history *and* the distorted view of an 'eternal' masculine warrior-value-code as fact and try to structure their life around it.
Näytä tämä ketju -
But it's that age old historical error: carelessly retrojecting one's modern values back into the past and assuming that people in the past thought exactly as we do now. Alright, g'night everybody.
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.