Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Joker Archetype

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:41 am

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:53 am

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:07 am





Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:32 am

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15002
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:46 am

Let's call this the Hannibal Lecter compared to The Joker archetypes.
Lecter has managed to build and preserve a place, a castle, full of the things he loves; with a courtyard where he keeps the stranglers in.
Joker is still a buffoon roaming the sewers. his every attempt to build a following, has been met with failure.

Instead of exploring the reasons why, he blameless others, or he flatters himself that he is "dangerous", attracting imbeciles, like him, to his bosom....within an others courtyard.
One is left to wonder how he will attract and keep allies when he is incapable of attracting anybody but some deranged, autistic, types.

Despite proposing himself as an agent of chaos, as if he knew that the hell that is, he is forced to submit to an others order.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:31 am

Satyr wrote:
Let's call this the Hannibal Lecter compared to The Joker archetypes.
Lecter has managed to build and preserve a place, a castle, full of the things he loves; with a courtyard where he keeps the stranglers in.
Joker is still a buffoon roaming the sewers. his every attempt to build a following, has been met with failure.

Instead of exploring the reasons why, he blameless others, or he flatters himself that he is "dangerous", attracting imbeciles, like him, to his bosom....within an others courtyard.
One is left to wonder how he will attract and keep allies when he is incapable of attracting anybody but some deranged, autistic, types.

Despite proposing himself as an agent of chaos, as if he knew that the hell that is, he is forced to submit to an others order.

Joker has to roam around in order to avoid capture.  The basic tenet of guerrilla warfare is mobility because the moment you become stationary you essentially become a sitting duck like Lecter in his castle.

Might as well put a big plaque sign on that castle that reads come and get me here.

The Joker would have no problem getting into that castle either. *Laughs*

Lecter is all about self indulgence. He strikes me as somebody that is entirely domesticated in the aristocratic atmosphere. Joker doesn't have that amount of time or luxury by comparison which makes him all the more dangerous.

The Joker mostly sticks with all sorts of abandoned buildings as hideouts are concerned.

Nothing fancy like a castle but that's because he doesn't try to draw too much attention to himself. A nice little abandoned factory will do so he can manufacture his bombs and chemical weapons. Plot out his plans.

Sure, his company isn't anybody from high society but they serve their purpose in achieving his ends.

Lecter on the on otherhand is a loner by comparison in all of his activities.

At least Joker is smart enough from time to time to recruit the help of others.

Others order?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:49 am

Back to top Go down
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:31 pm

The Joker Archetype and Mythology:

The 'Joker' character always has a smile on his face, either painted on as exaggeration, or "cut" into the skin in the recent movie adaptions. This permanent smile is a critical note to the importance of the Joker character and what he represents to the average Modern. A smile denotes happiness, so the Joker is "always happy" symbolically. His visage, his mask, is one of happiness. His mantra in the recent movie adaptions is "Why so serious?" in which he pits this questions against modern denizens of the state (Gotham).

The condition of the Modern is misery, sadness, and despair. Negative emotions. You can observe how Moderns are obsessed with finding "joy" and "happiness" in life. Why are the obsessed with "being happy" all the time? 24 hours a day? Why does the Modern need joy in his/her life, except, to balance some skewed or diseased state of emotions? To me, personally, an individual seeking "happiness/joy" all the time in life, through drugs, hedonism, narcotics, television, information stimulation, is Depressed. Internally sad, seeks external happiness.

This is the state of the Modern and the average Judæo-Christian, perpetually sad, miserable, unhappy with life. Society's Discontents.

The Joker character is then a mockery of the Modern, average man and woman. His permanent happiness is something they desire, and so are subconsciously drawn to, the character of Joker. Even though the Joker character harms, affronts, and sometimes kills the Modern man, the masses both fear and feel attraction to Joker at the same time. The allure of the "perma-happiness" is too much an urge for the Modern to deny.

This is symbolic, and it draws the Moderns to the movie theaters, to see the battle between their "chosen hero" (Batman) versus their "chosen nemesis" (Joker). These two movie archetypes are extensions of the Hellenic discrepancy and mythology, Apollo (Batman, value of Order) versus Dionysus (Joker, value of Chaos). The mockery of the Modern, average man, is the virtuous reaction of "Joker/Dionysus". Also, something to note, the Satyr figure has allegiance with Dionysus in literary mythological history. A Satyr is an agent of Dionysus, with a similar compulsion to "mock" the Modern man.

This was first presented in Ancient history, by the Greek, Hellenic Theatre. Actors and Actresses on a stage, presenting symbolic and allegoric plays, dramas, and stories to an audience, causing the audience members (observers) to expose themselves through laughter, or crying, or anger/rage, or gasps of fear. The Actors, then, represented agents of Dionysus by the ability to incite and inspire such emotion in the observers, revealing their deeper nature.

I'm also reminded of this movie scene, interview with a vampire:





This movie scene in "IWAV" is ironic in its display, of vampires and vampirism as agents of the Theater (Dionysus), however within a movie itself. These are perfect analogies and metaphors for the "Modern" condition and the modern man, therefore, deeply appealing and satisfying as deeper forms of entertainment (Intuitions) that tap into ancient conduits (a passage to the ancient allegories, meanings, symbolism, and states of past evolution).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1878
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:42 pm

Batman/Apollonian Archetype:

A brief synopsis:

The Batman archetype is more "Heroic" and "in defense" of the modern man and his enthralled condition, to state and church institutions. The Batman figure, essentially, defends the slave-like state and condition of modern, emasculated, feminized, civil servants (males). Batman fights for Gotham (his city-state) and fights against the fear inspired and fed upon by the villainous characters (Scarecrow, Joker, Bane, Raza'gul in the recent movie adaptions). While the villains feed-upon the Moderns (like the vampires from IWAV, agents of Dionysus, or Satyrs feeding upon the emotions of the crowd/audience), the Batman figure stands to "bring them back to reality". The devotion to Apollo is also synonymous to devotion to reality.

Apollo is an agent of light, truth, reality, and logic (Order). Batman is an agent of darkness, but, uses darkness to his benefit. Batman runs contrary to Apollo with regard to darkness, but instills all the other Apollonian values (truth, reality, logic). Batman is taught by Raza'gul to use darkness to defeat enemies. Thus Batman instills and defends Order through the avenues taken by villains. In this way, Batman is partially distrusted by the denizens, slaves, and citizens of Gotham. Joker sympathizes with Batman, but deems Batman flawed. Joker knows that Batman is simultaneously "above" the average modern man, but still beholden to flawed (Judæo-Christian) ideologies and slave-programming.

Joker ultimately mocks Batman for his values, endlessly taunting and goading him.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue May 17, 2016 8:49 am

The joker as the devil, and the devil as a fool.

Quote :
Blackface in the "Natural" Fool tradition

“The association of blackness with evil,” Anthony Gerard Barthelemy and others have noted, “has a long history on the English stage” as “the tradition goes back at least to early medieval drama” where Lucifer and other devils “were represented by actors painted black.” Likewise, as Virginia Mason Vaughan has recently demonstrated in her study Performing Blackness on English Stages, 1500–1800, “the association between black skin and damnation [also] permeated early modern English culture.” Scholars have so locked on to the color symbolism of evil that they have yet to attend to an equally demeaning, buried, moralizing tradition of early blackface comedy, one that associated blackness with degradation, irrationality, prideful lack of self-knowledge, transgression, and, related to all of these, folly. With disturbing frequency, blackface served as one commonplace mark of foolishness in the religiously inspired iconography of the so-called “natural” fool – in medieval and Renaissance English parlance, a butt, laughed at because he was mentally deficient (whether ignorant, dull- witted, or mad) and often physically different as well (e.g., hunch- backed, dwarfish, lame, ugly, blackfaced).

As an illustration of the prevalent and longstanding inattention to a range of buried symbolic religious associations with blackness, consider the mystery plays, the most frequently cited instances of blackness being identified with evil in the English theatre tradition. The Towneley/ Wakefield mystery cycle’s The Creation [and the Fall of Lucifer] (c. 1460), for example, depicts its fallen angels lamenting:

Alas, alas and welewo! ...
We, that were angels so fare,
and sat so hie aboue the ayere,
Now ar we waxen blak as any coyll [coal].

While these lines seem merely to suggest, as most critics have observed, that the fallen angels are now black, the quote actually continues: “Now ar we waxen blak as any coyll / and vgly, tatyrd as a foyll [fool]” (ll. 136–7; emphasis added). These fallen angels are not just black devils, then, but black fools, suffering degradation in part as a consequence of their folly. While steering clear of a discussion of blackness in their study of the medieval fool, Martin Stevens and James Paxson have demonstrated that, here and elsewhere, “Evil in the Wakefield plays ... depends ... on the demon/fool, whose conversion from the angelic ... develops into a range of personifications of folly.”

Consistent with the Wakefield and Chester plays, the York pageant of The Fall of the Angels (c. 1460s) features black devils, but ones that have even more clearly fallen into folly.

Having discovered his sudden blackness (“My brightness is blackest ... now” [l. 101]), the prideful Lucifer, somewhat humorously, accuses Second Devil of having “smore me in smoke” (l. 117). Traditionally, the word “smore” has been glossed nonsensically as “smother,”18 but it appears perhaps more likely that the line could read as “you smeared me with smoke” or soot, consis- tent with The Oxford English Dictionary’s “To smear, bedaub” (OED 3 as in “1530 Pals[grave] ... ‘where have you ben, you have all to smored your face’ ”), precisely because it is the devils’ blackness that is at issue. More importantly, finding himself “brent” or burnt (l. 107) and “lorn” of “light” (l. 108), and being no longer stable in thought, Second Devil laments, “Out, out! I go wood [i.e., mad] for woe, my wit is all went now” (l. 105), with both madness and lost wits – and, apparently, blackness – being conventional attributes of “natural” folly. Finally, the devils’ comically childish bickering over the cause of their new state prompts God to call these mad, black devils “[t]hose fools” (l. 129).
Therefore, while it is partly true, as Vaughan believes, that “the visual code of the cycle plays was a simple binary: salvation versus damnation,” that binary was far more subtle than simply good versus evil. Blackness in these mystery plays was instead associated less with evil (at least as we know it) than with folly, madness, and an absence of that divine gift, the “light” of reason. Here was not simply a black Devil’s fall into the depths of hell but, more importantly, a depiction of his descent into the degradations of folly via blackness.

Although the blackness of early devils was perhaps, typically, not expressly linked to race – even though devils were “often compared to Ethiopians” – the irrationality associated with blackfaced devils was nonetheless to have an enduring influence on notions of blackface, and thus blackness.

Such a conclusion is supported by historian of theology Jeffrey Burton Russell who notes that the medi- eval Devil, though sometimes clever, was also “a total fool,” “the personi- fication of ... our own foolishness,” “at bottom a fool who understands nothing.” In antiquity, theologians explained that the Devil’s rational powers and intellect were impaired – “darkened by folly,” as Augustine would have it – after the fall. The Devil was mad as a result, a belief that informs widespread medieval and Renaissance assumptions that madness itself was due to demonic possession or punishment for sin. Moreover, the Devil, being foolish, “could be overcome by man’s … laughter.

The tradition of the blackfaced fool in England became especially pronounced alongside the expanding slave trade in Europe, particularly with the development of an English slave trade.

As Enid Welsford put it, his “mental deficiencies” can often have the effect of “put[ting] him in ... [a] position of virtual outlawry”; by his very nature the natural fool “stand[s] outside the law” and tends “to turn the world upside down.” A black face became a sign of one marked as both transgressor and butt and thus as a scapegoat, a whipping boy, an insipiens, a fool – and also a slave. The black man was believed innately happy because he was assumed to be simply a natural. In fact, as Joseph Boskin argues, his humor was depicted as similar to that of “the fool.” Washington Irving thus found the “negroes” he described in Knickerbocker’s History of New York (1809) as “famous for their risible powers,” while English comedian John Bernard, following a visit to America between 1797 and 1811, termed “the negroes the greatest humorists of the union” because of their “profound simplicity,” their “natural drollery,” which was “Nature’s spontaneous product in full bloom.”

A key in such stereotyping was the figure of Sambo: “slow-witted, loosely shuffling, buttock-scratching, benignly optimistic, superstitiously frightened, childishly lazy, irresponsibly carefree, ... sexually animated. His physical characteristics added to the jester’s appearance: toothy- grinned, ... slack-jawed, round-eyed.” But this description seems as apt for the age-old natural fool as for the more recent blackface minstrelsy of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for Sambo is but the latest name for the natural fool in blackface." [Robert Hornback, The English Clown Tradition from the Middle Ages to Shakespeare]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
gafr

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 43
Join date : 2016-05-31
Location : ...

PostSubject: Joker Archetype Tue May 31, 2016 1:10 am

Æon wrote:
The Joker Archetype and Mythology:

The 'Joker' character always has a smile on his face, either painted on as exaggeration, or "cut" into the skin in the recent movie adaptions.  This permanent smile is a critical note to the importance of the Joker character and what he represents to the average Modern.  A smile denotes happiness, so the Joker is "always happy" symbolically.  His visage, his mask, is one of happiness.  His mantra in the recent movie adaptions is "Why so serious?" in which he pits this questions against modern denizens of the state (Gotham).

The condition of the Modern is misery, sadness, and despair.  Negative emotions.  You can observe how Moderns are obsessed with finding "joy" and "happiness" in life.  Why are the obsessed with "being happy" all the time?  24 hours a day?  Why does the Modern need joy in his/her life, except, to balance some skewed or diseased state of emotions?  To me, personally, an individual seeking "happiness/joy" all the time in life, through drugs, hedonism, narcotics, television, information stimulation, is Depressed.  Internally sad, seeks external happiness.

This is the state of the Modern and the average Judæo-Christian, perpetually sad, miserable, unhappy with life.  Society's Discontents.

The Joker character is then a mockery of the Modern, average man and woman.  His permanent happiness is something they desire, and so are subconsciously drawn to, the character of Joker.  Even though the Joker character harms, affronts, and sometimes kills the Modern man, the masses both fear and feel attraction to Joker at the same time.  The allure of the "perma-happiness" is too much an urge for the Modern to deny.

This is symbolic, and it draws the Moderns to the movie theaters, to see the battle between their "chosen hero" (Batman) versus their "chosen nemesis" (Joker).  These two movie archetypes are extensions of the Hellenic discrepancy and mythology, Apollo (Batman, value of Order) versus Dionysus (Joker, value of Chaos).  The mockery of the Modern, average man, is the virtuous reaction of "Joker/Dionysus".  Also, something to note, the Satyr figure has allegiance with Dionysus in literary mythological history.  A Satyr is an agent of Dionysus, with a similar compulsion to "mock" the Modern man.

This was first presented in Ancient history, by the Greek, Hellenic Theatre.  Actors and Actresses on a stage, presenting symbolic and allegoric plays, dramas, and stories to an audience, causing the audience members (observers) to expose themselves through laughter, or crying, or anger/rage, or gasps of fear.  The Actors, then, represented agents of Dionysus by the ability to incite and inspire such emotion in the observers, revealing their deeper nature.

The smile is embedded in the scares resembling a grin, the enjoyment of pain where a self-hatred is stitched in, not only is it  the denotation of always happy, but always hysteric, a chaotic hysteria, with a cut smile running deep. The red paint representing the spilling of blood fused with laughter, manslaughter as in man's laughter in lunacy, a loon, balloons, a clown with a frown turned upside down, this reflects a denial of order, struggling to accept the struggle of reality, let loose into self, a luna-tick, a blood sucker of the night, feeding on itself, with projection.

The lunacy finds the clown as a social outlet, no responsibility, the craziness entertaining itself, a joker with no seriousness to be aware of the seriousness of the joke, a self-choker. An externalized reflection of the modern's internal chaos. A colorful exterior, a red smile, green hair, a purple jacket, sparkling fireworks, a blast, a bang, a work of fire, a vibrancy of violence.

Feminine chaos with a feminine need to be visible and seen, no relation to emotional expression other than through a portrayal of a portrait, this is modern art in the living flesh, with the modernity living in the flesh, the chaos takes on a hedonistic artificial flamboyance because of the environmental circumstance, expressed through a colorful image which turns emotion into a mere act disconnected from itself into playfulness, a play.

A drop of color into water, dropping out of the purity of order in to a clown, which is one step of craziness away from a pantomime, who is completely locked in, trying to escape into a clown seeking relief from itself, black and white, no color, a gloom before a loon, no sound other than the sound of a menacing mind, one the body attempts to flee from until it finds a colorful ecstasy into a joyride, free from reality, free from self.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue May 31, 2016 6:58 am

gafr wrote:
Æon wrote:
The Joker Archetype and Mythology:

The 'Joker' character always has a smile on his face, either painted on as exaggeration, or "cut" into the skin in the recent movie adaptions.  This permanent smile is a critical note to the importance of the Joker character and what he represents to the average Modern.  A smile denotes happiness, so the Joker is "always happy" symbolically.  His visage, his mask, is one of happiness.  His mantra in the recent movie adaptions is "Why so serious?" in which he pits this questions against modern denizens of the state (Gotham).

The condition of the Modern is misery, sadness, and despair.  Negative emotions.  You can observe how Moderns are obsessed with finding "joy" and "happiness" in life.  Why are the obsessed with "being happy" all the time?  24 hours a day?  Why does the Modern need joy in his/her life, except, to balance some skewed or diseased state of emotions?  To me, personally, an individual seeking "happiness/joy" all the time in life, through drugs, hedonism, narcotics, television, information stimulation, is Depressed.  Internally sad, seeks external happiness.

This is the state of the Modern and the average Judæo-Christian, perpetually sad, miserable, unhappy with life.  Society's Discontents.

The Joker character is then a mockery of the Modern, average man and woman.  His permanent happiness is something they desire, and so are subconsciously drawn to, the character of Joker.  Even though the Joker character harms, affronts, and sometimes kills the Modern man, the masses both fear and feel attraction to Joker at the same time.  The allure of the "perma-happiness" is too much an urge for the Modern to deny.

This is symbolic, and it draws the Moderns to the movie theaters, to see the battle between their "chosen hero" (Batman) versus their "chosen nemesis" (Joker).  These two movie archetypes are extensions of the Hellenic discrepancy and mythology, Apollo (Batman, value of Order) versus Dionysus (Joker, value of Chaos).  The mockery of the Modern, average man, is the virtuous reaction of "Joker/Dionysus".  Also, something to note, the Satyr figure has allegiance with Dionysus in literary mythological history.  A Satyr is an agent of Dionysus, with a similar compulsion to "mock" the Modern man.

This was first presented in Ancient history, by the Greek, Hellenic Theatre.  Actors and Actresses on a stage, presenting symbolic and allegoric plays, dramas, and stories to an audience, causing the audience members (observers) to expose themselves through laughter, or crying, or anger/rage, or gasps of fear.  The Actors, then, represented agents of Dionysus by the ability to incite and inspire such emotion in the observers, revealing their deeper nature.

The smile is embedded in the scares resembling a grin, the enjoyment of pain where a self-hatred is stitched in, not only is it  the denotation of always happy, but always hysteric, a chaotic hysteria, with a cut smile running deep. The red paint representing the spilling of blood fused with laughter, manslaughter as in man's laughter in lunacy, a loon, balloons, a clown with a frown turned upside down, this reflects a denial of order, struggling to accept the struggle of reality, let loose into self, a luna-tick, a blood sucker of the night, feeding on itself, with projection.

The lunacy finds the clown as a social outlet, no responsibility, the craziness entertaining itself, a joker with no seriousness to be aware of the seriousness of the joke, a self-choker. An externalized reflection of the modern's internal chaos. A colorful exterior, a red smile, green hair, a purple jacket, sparkling fireworks, a blast, a bang, a work of fire, a vibrancy of violence.

Feminine chaos with a feminine need to be visible and seen, no relation to emotional expression other than through a portrayal of a portrait, this is modern art in the living flesh, with the modernity living in the flesh, the chaos takes on a hedonistic artificial flamboyance because of the environmental circumstance, expressed through a colorful image which turns emotion into a mere act disconnected from itself into playfulness, a play.

A drop of color into water, dropping out of the purity of order in to a clown, which is one step of craziness away from a pantomime, who is completely locked in, trying to escape into a clown seeking relief from itself, black and white, no color, a gloom before a loon, no sound other than the sound of a menacing mind, one the body attempts to flee from until it finds a colorful ecstasy into a joyride, free from reality, free from self.


"Why so Serious?" Live Lightly is also Hannibal's mantra... it almost gets him confused with the Joker...

The Joker's "why so serious?" is his indifference - 'I dont care who I destroy' (nothing feels tolerable)

Hannibal's "why so serious?" is his indifference - 'I dont care enough to destroy', I toy... (a great deal of toleration)


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:11 am

Along with academic censorship, is its corollary of spurious sponsorship, that helps propagate disinformation as 'scientific papers', or as 'certified-science', or as 'certified-philosophy'.

The infamous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] affair needs to be mentioned here as a Joker archetype within the scope of the Hoax-ter.

Sokal exposed the scientific peer-reviewing community in their fraudulent validation of a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] within the field of a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], in the name of "objectivity":

Quote :
"‘Why did I do it?’ writes Alan Sokal, a man whose name has become synonymous with a particular kind of critical hoax: ‘While my method was satirical, my motivation was utterly serious’. Sokal’s now famous hoax involved deceiving the editorial board of a prestigious Cultural Studies journal by passing off an essay riddled with jokes and absurdities as scholarship. The success of the hoax lay in the fact of its publication.

For Sokal suggests, by his practice, that mumbo jumbo baffles the reader’s intellectual defences. The OED hesitates not once, but twice, in its etymology of the word hoax. As well it might. Its origin, apparently, may lie in the term hocus pocus (then again it may not). And if it does, the origin of that term, hocus pocus, in its turn may lie in a medieval incantation uttered in much the way that children now cry out ‘abracadabra!’ – flourish – ecce! The term they used to utter, so the history would have it, is hax pax max Deus adimax. And what does that mean? Well, it would appear not to mean anything:

Abraxas, another magical word, is often found on gems. Hocus-pocus appears much later, and its etymology is controversial; some derive it from the Middle Ages formula hax pax max Deus adimax, which was first used in the Middle Ages by vagrant scholars who performed magical tricks; others see it as a parody of “hoc est corpus”; “this is the body,” which was spoken by priests during Holy Communion.

Hoax, the word, according to someone with a name close enough to know, is ‘perhaps’ derived from all this. Maybe. Then again, maybe not."

More: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Joker Archetype

Back to top Go down
 
The Joker Archetype
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Horseback Riding
» The Christ Figure - Archetypes
» Is Joker Still Around/Alive?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: