polytheism

[John_Savage]

Are you aware that The Wizard of Oz was intended as some sort of leftist allegory? I found out a while ago. It apparently has a lot of depth.

In all seriousness, he’s one of my favorites Speaking of children’s stories with a spiritual dimension, I also very much appreciated Jim Henson’s The Muppet Movie and the Dark Crystal (Henson was very influenced by the work of medium Jane Roberts; angelfire.com/me3/muppets/WordsJim.html), as well as Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz (Baum was influenced by theosophy). teosofiskakompaniet.net/LFrankBaumTheosophist.htm

The Wizard of Oz film can be enjoyed on a few different levels, but one of them is this more “theosophical” orientation.

For example:

Dorothy: Oh, you’re the best friends anybody ever had. And it’s funny, but I feel as if I’d known you all the time, but I couldn’t have, could I?

Scarecrow: I don’t see how. You weren’t around when I was stuffed and sewn together, were you?

Tin Woodsman: And I was standing over there, rusting for the longest time.

Dorothy: Still, I wish I could remember, but I guess it doesn’t matter anyway. We know each other now, don’t we?

Scarecrow: That’s right.

On the one hand, this obviously refers to the fact that Dorothy is dreaming, and does know all of these folks, in real life (even though she doesn’t recognize that she’s dreaming, nor remember them to their waking counterparts). On another level, though, this is a “neat” metaphor for Baum’s belief in reincarnation, indeed a kind of “theosophical” parable.

Muppet Movie is similar… youtube.com/watch?v=ryEjm3k6uY0

 

[Portofino]

Are you aware that The Wizard of Oz was intended as some sort of leftist allegory? I found out a while ago. It apparently has a lot of depth.

That, I hadn’t heard… I did hear that Frank Baum’s book did embody regional American attitudes, though, specifically from the perspective of Midwesterners of the late 19th and early 20th century; thus:

—the Midwest, Kansas, was “good and wholesome” (“I have the feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore”)

–the East was viewed with suspicion (“the wicked witch of the East”)

–the West was viewed with suspicion (“the wicked witch of the West”)

Thank you, though, for that heads-up; will have to read more about it.

I do think it was a film that was against materialism, whether it in a worldly sense or a spiritual sense. Thus, it wasn’t by following the “yellow brick road” (a reference to the Gold Rush?) that one obtained one’s heart’s desires. Courage, the ability to love, and intelligence were qualities to be cultivated from within.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Oz!

His mother-in-law was a feminist. The little girl was smarter than all of the men! She had to take care of them, etc…

I read that in a magazine dealing with American History. I do not recall the actual name, but it was a year or to ago.

 

[Jim_Baur]

If you see it as an allegory-faith, hope and love.

Who knows?

 

[John_Savage]

During the 1880s and 1890s, Baum’s sympathies were with the Populist movement and William Jennings Bryan, who tried and failed to challenge Eastern industrialists and Wall Street through the coinage of silver, which would have inflated the currency and bailed out farmers and other with large debts at the expense of savers.

In the original book, …Dorothy represents the honest people of the Heartland. The Scarecrow represents farmers, the Tin Woodsman industrial workers, and the Cowardly Lion is Bryan himself, who Baum considered to be too timid a politician. Oz is supposed to represent Washington under the control of monied interests (remember the green-tinted glasses?), and the role of the gold standard is emphasized (the Yellow Brick Road, the use of the common abbreviation “oz” for gold ounces, etc.).

 

[Portofino]

John_Savage:
Thank you for this, John – it adds a level of enjoyment to the story. The analogy would appear to work brilliantly, with the scarecrow as the farmer, the tin man as the industrial laborer, with the Emerald City being the color of U.S. money, and the yellow brick road being paved with what appear to be bars of gold. I did read, on the other hand, that Frank Baum states that he derived “OZ” from a a random glance around his room, where his eye was caught by the “O–Z” of his filing cabinet. So, ostensibly, there was no conscious intention to align it with ounes (1 oz ), the standard of measurement for gold and silver.

I’ve heard similar brilliant analogies between the original Star Wars movie, and World War II. Obviously, Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers represent the Nazis; the Jedi are the British; peaceful Aldoran is Switzerland (“we have no weapons”); Hans Solo is America, reluctant and not wanting to get involved. It becomes like interpreting a dream. Of course, the Jedi themselves most closely resemble Japanese samurai warriors, or the Knights Templar.

There is a polytheism connection here in that – even as monotheists – we all indulge the polytheistic impulse in our appreciation of art and mythology.

Two obvious examples would be C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. The polytheism of the Greeks, or of the Vikings, becamse appreciated as myths that communicate important truths about the human condition. Art allows us to indulge that polytheistic impulse – Superman, the X-Men, Lord of the Rings, Ring of the Nibelungs – imaginatively, and it indeed seems as if there is a continued human need for that kind of symbolism or “myth-making.” Extraterrestrials fulfill that purpose, as well. ET is something of a god, healing others psychically, rising from the dead. ET is no less of a Christ figure, in its way, than C.S. Lewis’ Aslan was a Christ figure – a lion representing the son of God.

Polytheistic Egyptians portraying gods as animals is disturbing to a monotheistic sensibility; but C.S. Lewis pulled it off, in making God as a lion seem quite natural and inoffensive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jim**

If they were to consider many gods instead of chance making it, it might be easier for the non-religious people and scientists to believe in many gods.**

There is a principle widely hailed by scientists called Occam’s Razor. The Razor is used to shave off any unnecessary complexities in explaining any phenomenon. The simplest explanation for all Creation is a single Creator. For that reason alone I expect that most scientists would prefer one God to many.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Charlemagne II

In a sense, chance is much more complex than many gods.

How can logic comprehend chance?