Towards an imaginal dialogue: archetypal symbols between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Islam
This paper explores the potential for a dialogue between religious traditions based on art, in order to complement the dominant channels that rely on conceptual meanings. Building on a theoretical framework of post-Jungian archetypal psychology - as developed by James Hillman and Henry Corbin - we p...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
[publisher not identified]
[2016]
|
| Dans: |
Approaching religion
Année: 2016, Volume: 6, Numéro: 2, Pages: 81-95 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Église orthodoxe
/ Islam
/ Symbolisme
/ Archétype
|
| RelBib Classification: | AE Psychologie de la religion BJ Islam KDF Église orthodoxe |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Islam
B Imaginal B Jung B Orthodox Christianity B Archetypes B Hillman B Collective Unconscious B Interfaith Dialogue |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | This paper explores the potential for a dialogue between religious traditions based on art, in order to complement the dominant channels that rely on conceptual meanings. Building on a theoretical framework of post-Jungian archetypal psychology - as developed by James Hillman and Henry Corbin - we propose that the utility of such a dialogue inheres in the notion of an imaginal realm, or mundus imaginalis. In the first part of the paper we highlight three key features of this notion: the distinction between the imaginal and the imaginary; the significance of a culturally differentiated collective unconscious; and a reflection of the imaginal in practice rather than conceptually. We emphasize the materiality of sacred symbols that emerge from the imaginal realm. In the second part, we illustrate the importance of two archetypal symbols: the fish and the chalice. The significance of these symbols in history and in the practices of communities of believers is discussed. Thirdly, we discuss specific features of the dialogue emerging from these ubiquitous archetypal symbols. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1799-3121 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Approaching religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.30664/ar.67594 |