Narcissus and Narcissism

WIKEPEDIA: Narcissus or Narkissos (Greek: Νάρκισσος), possibly derived from ναρκη (narke) meaning "sleep, numbness," in Greek mythology was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was the son of a river god named Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope.[1] He was exceptionally proud, in what he did to those who loved him. Nemesis saw this and attracted Narcissus to a pool where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died.[2] Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.


Interesting word. Appears to be all about self-absorption. Self-love. But can it also be a fixated self-loathing too? Or are your problems the fault of others - even though you love yourself (deep down), you kill yourself to teach the world a lesson?

What about a person who believes God speaks in them? How do we know if it's God (through the Person), the Person (him/herself), or Both speaking their Wisdom, and not, in fact, just Narcissism? "Oh look at me. I speak for God. Isn't it so Written that there will be His Children - Prophets? His Children! ME, that is."  

God, Jesus, Mohammad, Mahatma Ghandi, Buddha, Krishna, Osiris, Mithras, Thor.... Narcissists all?

Philosophers talk about the Ego (Id?) How can we not all be Narcissists? Oh woe is me. Best not look in the mirror.

Quote from Jesus and the Goddess by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

Actually there are thousands of Jesuses, because everyone has a different one. And the extraordinary thing is everyone's Jesus looks suspiciously like them. Fire and brimstone types have a fire and brimstone Jesus. Nice liberal pacifists have a nice liberal pacifist Jesus. Jews have a rabbi Jesus. Buddhists have a Buddhist Jesus. Hindus have an avatar Jesus. The great German theologian Rudolf Bultman called this the "deep well effect". Looking for the 'real' Jesus is like looking down a well - all we see is our own reflection.  

Narcisssus and Jesus are different mythological figures. Or are they?

Is narcissism related to pomposity?

  Narcissism is pomposity, Eldo, and is clearly limited and not limited to that - at least, for those who have eyes to see, that is.

Oh Gawd! Am I being sarcastic, serious, or merely pompous; or one or all of them?  Hey! Does this mean that whenever I say something I will automatically be labelled 'pompous'. Careful you don't become a Mind Policeman, Eldo. Be careful you don't become a cheap shooter.

pomposity [pɒmˈpɒsɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. vain or ostentatious display of dignity or importance  {{{Odo?}}}

2. the quality of being pompous

3. ostentatiously lofty style, language, etc.  {{{Eldo?}}}

4. a pompous action, remark, etc.


{{Wants to play games does he?  Though it's all getting a bit narcissistic, what.  }}}

WIKIPEDIA: Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population.[better source needed][2][3] First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and is severe egocentrism.

This could go on for ever - and probably will.

Is this thread in response to what Hillbilly said the other day?  

It began as an annoyed reaction - but then I moved on to other interesting thoughts. (Eldo helped.  )

Interesting point about the Jesus story Orwell, I hadnt considered its flexibility in personal interpretation much before, but it probably accounts for its endurance to some degree.
Although I am not sure how much of that is deliberate and how much is a coincidence that came about from putting contradictory information, and contradictory political spins into the gospel stories, leaving them broad enough that both zealot and peace maker can point to Jesus and both still say 'he is our man'.

You called yourself agnostic somewhere, Petty (I think). You clearly are aware of the diversity of early Christian (and Pagan) interpretations. All that Mystery School stuff. There is much diversity even amid the ranks of so-called modern day Conservative Christian groups, Catholic and Protestant - let alone all the non-conformist sects new and old and ancient. Early Christianity was probably even more diverse than Christianity is now. It was like every individual Christian had their own Christianity. I guess they still do, they just label themselves with collective nouns like 'Conservative Christian' to make it seem they're not alone, fearing, I guess, that if they don't make themselves part of a movement (a collective of some sort) they might be thought Narcissistic.  Jesus come to think was very much an indivdual. Sometimes it seemed it was all about Him. When he looked down the well who did Jesus see? Just some thoughts I'm having. Hope I don't sound pompous.

Yeah Id call myself agnostic, most of the time, when I get it right and dont confuse it with gnostic.  

The formation of the early Church is quite interesting, because there sort of already was one Jesus was at least associated with in his own life time, the one headed by James his brother.
Thing about Jews, especially back then, that made them unique was their God had something to say about every aspect of life, so everything you did was 'religious'. The upshot of this is that in those parts of the world religion and politics are the same thing, as politics cant possibly be separate from Gods rules.
So James as well as also being a teacher, probably a Rabbi himself, was also a politician, and a good enough one by inference to get himself to the Head of his Church.
But there is good evidence he, and his Church and their version of Jesus, were all eventually purged, particularly by Paul who had his own version of Jesus (someone he never met) that was significantly different. And Pauls version was by design hugely appealing to Gentiles, and eventually to the State itself as the State Religion.
Politics and Christianity have been one an the same since the very beginning.
Um, there was a point to this in relation to what you said, but Ive forgotten what it was!  

PLEA

I've got a few questions, but God refuses to acknowledge me when I cry out to him in the night. The only contact I have with Him just now is indirectly - through the Bible, Pastor/Preachers and Christain Forumers. If someone is in direct contact, please let me know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah Id call myself agnostic, most of the time, when I get it right and dont confuse it with gnostic.  

I actually thought being a 'Gnostic' sounded kind of cool. "My name is Petty, and I am a Seeker of Knowledge." If that's not cool, nothing is!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The formation of the early Church is quite interesting, because there sort of already was one Jesus was at least associated with in his own life time, the one headed by James his brother.

If Jesus didn't actually exist, could he still have had a brother?  Actually, I see no reason why there couldn't have been a man called Jesus. A teacher of some sort, maybe a Jewish Cynic Philospher.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thing about Jews, especially back then, that made them unique was their God had something to say about every aspect of life, so everything you did was 'religious'. The upshot of this is that in those parts of the world religion and politics are the same thing, as politics cant possibly be separate from Gods rules.

The Jews had most of their stories in their scroll collection. Pagans had heaps of scrolls all over the place. Pagans were just as religious in every day life - though maybe they were superstitious, not religious.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So James as well as also being a teacher, probably a Rabbi himself, was also a politician, and a good enough one by inference to get himself to the Head of his Church. But there is good evidence he, and his Church and their version of Jesus, were all eventually purged, particularly by Paul who had his own version of Jesus (someone he never met) that was significantly different. And Pauls version was by design hugely appealing to Gentiles, and eventually to the State itself as the State Religion.

So many things to look at, Petty! I'll pick one (to shorten my response). If you remove Paul's letters that weren't actually written by him, he sounds incredibly gnostic. As you say, he does not even appear to have known a real Jesus, though he does appear to have known his brother, James - which seems to confirm Jesus existed. Why invent an imaginary brother on top of an imaginary Jesus?  

Pettytyrant101 wrote: Politics and Christianity have been one and the same since the very beginning.

Politics and Religion too, I reckon.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Um, there was a point to this in relation to what you said, but Ive forgotten what it was!  

Religion is the opium (buckie?) of the masses, I hear.  But it all sounds a bit narcissistic if you ask me.

Pagans had heaps of scrolls all over the place. Pagans were just as religious in every day life - Orwell

The short answer to that is no.
The long answer is that they had plenty of religion- but in its place and time, almost everyone had purification rites, most of them had some sort of food laws, usually naming things like rats and poisonous stuff as unclean.
But crucially you generally got on with life as you saw fit, guided by your several gods teachings yes, but without specific rules. you did the rites when you were meant to, but that was about it.
Jews on the other hand had a God who told them when they could and couldnt work, and then you had to define exactly what it was God meant by 'work'. And every bit of life was governed this way. It was quite unique, that and having only one God and a Temple with nothing in it. Nobody seemed to have thought of an invisible God before presumably because of all the trouble it would cause with the statue makers union.


But it all sounds a bit narcissistic if you ask me.- Orwell

I love narcissism.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The short answer to that is no.

But not the correct answer. The (slightly) longer answer is yes. See your comment below for proof!  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The long answer is that they had plenty of religion- but in its place and time, almost everyone had purification rites, most of them had some sort of food laws, usually naming things like rats and poisonous stuff as unclean. But crucially you generally got on with life as you saw fit, guided by your several gods teachings yes, but without specific rules. you did the rites when you were meant to, but that was about it. Jews on the other hand had a God who told them when they could and couldnt work, and then you had to define exactly what it was God meant by 'work'. And every bit of life was governed this way. It was quite unique, that and having only one God and a Temple with nothing in it. Nobody seemed to have thought of an invisible God before presumably because of all the trouble it would cause with the statue makers union.

May I add, you seem to make the assumption that all Jews obeyed the rules. High Priests, Priests and Rabbis etcetera were always railing against folk who did not obey them in small or large ways. Human beings have always been human beings (even Jews). The Letter of the Law has always been something for the Purists to haggle over. Most folk (even Jews) have got on with life - while paying enough attention to religious forms to keep out of trouble. I won't go into all the heathenish, Mystery Schoolish, paganistic things Jews did - on the sly - or sometimes in full view - the Rabbis turning a blind eye. Actually, there was never just one Judaism. They were as argumentative as anyone. The populace was as pagan as any non-Judaic grouping. There was never a set religion, only the semblance of a set religion, said 'semblance' due to the fact the Jews had collected a select heap of paganistic scrolls together as a body of religious work.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I love narcissism.  

Without it, we are nothing - or, at least, I aren't.

Orwell wrote:You called yourself agnostic somewhere, Petty (I think). You clearly are aware of the diversity of early Christian (and Pagan) interpretations. All that Mystery School stuff. There is much diversity even amid the ranks of so-called modern day Conservative Christian groups, Catholic and Protestant - let alone all the non-conformist sects new and old and ancient. Early Christianity was probably even more diverse than Christianity is now. It was like every individual Christian had their own Christianity. I guess they still do, they just label themselves with collective nouns like 'Conservative Christian' to make it seem they're not alone, fearing, I guess, that if they don't make themselves part of a movement (a collective of some sort) they might be thought Narcissistic.  Jesus come to think was very much an indivdual. Sometimes it seemed it was all about Him. When he looked down the well who did Jesus see? Just some thoughts I'm having. Hope I don't sound pompous.

I thought I put 'a gnostic' not 'agnostic' in the above post.  If I didn't know better, I'd think I'd been tampered with. And only Eldo can do that, can't he?   Maybe not... weird... Funny thing, Petty, but maybe I did put agnostic - though I meant to say 'a gnostic'.. And you seemed to know what I was getting at... or was there a conversation about this but I can't remember it...  .... weird....

{{{I must stop looking down the well.  All I can see is me (Me). Handsome chap, though... }}}

"you seem to make the assumption that all Jews obeyed the rules."- Orwell

No, not at all, the numbers who obeyed to the letter or not at all and all points inbetween was probably about the same as in any other religion of the time, but it was unique to have a religion that had rules for every aspect of everyday life.
No other contemporary religion as like that. For the most part Gods resided in their temples, and you had your own personal shrines and stuff, and you had times to worship, and rules to follow about religion, but not rules about every aspect of your life. The Jews did, it marked them out from other people, it got them noticed when they began living in numbers in Gentile cities because unlike everyone else they didn't just adopt the local customs or lifestyles.
One of the most notable at the time and recorded as such was there prohibition against pork, a stable of the Greek and Roman world, and which Jews refused to matter what.
Circumcision was another notable non negotiable feature of their Gods rules.
It really was something new. And in no small part why Paul's Gentile friendly version of Judiasm became so popular. New things are usually popular with the youth of the day.

I wonder if this has as much to do with Christianity winning and Paganism losing (and much of it's history being obliterated) as it does with the reality of daily life (and superstition) on the ground in those times? (I take it for granted that Christians helped preserve much of Jewish History).

The Jews have kept their own history I'd say, and as they have remained continuous throughout Christianity probably didnt effect it much in the early days.
By the time you get to Paul and then onto the Church becoming the state religion of Rome it was a Gentile religion. I doubt many Jews as a percent of the whole converted to it.
By a strange coincidence the Christianity Paul had preached got rid of the tricky food laws in a pork loving Empire, dumped the very unpopular an uncool circumcision, and had incorporated lots of Greek/Roman friendly religious tropes- god impregnating young ladies, semi-divine/semi-human offspring, the old Osiris resurrection story. Something for everyone all in one marketable package.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The Jews have kept their own history I'd say, and as they have remained continuous throughout Christianity probably didnt effect it much in the early days.

The Christians (much as they hated the Jews - and still do) went light on them in regard to preserving their histories and their stories. They destroyed Pagan History as much as they could.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:By the time you get to Paul and then onto the Church becoming the state religion of Rome it was a Gentile religion. I doubt many Jews as a percent of the whole converted to it.

I think you're right, not a lot of Jews converted. Jews saw Christianity for the paganism dressed (lightly) in Judaism that it was. (That's three hundred year period you refer to btw).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:By a strange coincidence the Christianity Paul had preached got rid of the tricky food laws in a pork loving Empire, dumped the very unpopular an uncool circumcision, and had incorporated lots of Greek/Roman friendly religious tropes- god impregnating young ladies, semi-divine/semi-human offspring, the old Osiris resurrection story. Something for everyone all in one marketable package.

Bless Paul and his Paganistic Gnostism. His later Letters - fraudently applied to him, though not written by him - were nastier.

They destroyed Pagan History as much as they could.- Orwell

Not until much later.

That's three hundred years!- Orwell

Yes, but Paul is who bridges the gap, its his version of the Jesus story thats endorsed at Nicaea, and all other accounts are made heretical. That's where the rot started, right there. Right on day 1.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:They destroyed Pagan History as much as they could.- Orwell

Not until much later.

But a lot has gone, no matter when it was expunged. We know less about Paganistic religion and practice than we do early Christian religion and practice.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:That's three hundred years!- Orwell

Yes, but Paul is who bridges the gap, its his version of the Jesus story thats endorsed at Nicaea, and all other accounts are made heretical. That's where the rot started, right there. Right on day 1.

The 'Paul' of his own letters, or the "Paul' of letters written by others after him?

Well that depends on which parts you think are later introductions and which are his genuine voice.
Some of it you can work out from the dates of events that are spoken of in visions, but at the same time he may well really have had visions, just not necessarily those ones.
When he is woeing and cursing the different churches thats probably later too.
But I think the deifying of Jesus and the removal of Gentile and unfriendly Jewish stuff began, as well as the de-jewing of Jesus and detaching him from his actual living family, with Paul.
So I think Paul has a lot to answer for still.

I think I need to go back to my sources on this. I remember that certain letters are totally forged and some are modified and edited to varying degrees. Letters like Romans and Thessalonians, I think, are pretty much Paul's words (and voice) as far as I can remember. Ist Corinthians, maybe. I can't remember just now.

I hope you don't expect me to read my "Unvarnished New Testament" again! Or find my books that discuss what letters are authentically Pauline and what are fraudulently written Paul!

I seem to remember The Letter to the Hebrews and the Timothy Letters are out and out frauds.

Maybe I'll get back and research some facts to back up my perceptions one day. I have a bookshelf full of New Testament history - but I've forgotten sooo much.  


{{{I'm reading Colonial Australian History and Aboriginal History at the moment. Does that sound narcissistic of me to mention it?}}}

I would need to refresh my own memory on the details of the Paul letters too.
But I am pretty sure he still comes out as most culpable for 'embellishing' the story.

{{{Narcissistic no, but as I asked you to mention anything interesting as you studied this area, and this is the first time you've even mentioned it since, and you mention nothing of interest, I assume its not very interesting at all. Or you couldnt be arsed to share your discoveries  Typical Ozhobbit, youre probably to busy at sports or something  }}}