And:To clarify " The Furies " reference; I was speaking strictly towards a very loose metaphorical connection to what Robert Walters had mentioned in an earlier posted video on another thread; and which I used in my topic outline. But as you rightly have clarified that usage is incorrect from a clinical position. My apologies for I certainly was not intending to play " fast and loose " with the medical defintion or understanding. As you have insightfully surmised I am sifting and sorting through much of this material as reflected through my own personal individuated journey of understanding.
Here it is the video from the topic outline description; ( I probably should have been clearer about it when I made the reference. ):
( I think also that this was given from more of a mythological perspective than from a clinical; analytical; or psychological sense. But certainly you would know more than I on this. )
Cindy B. wrote:James,
Even I had time to just watch that one-minute video. And what I took away from it is mainly the notions of complexes and shadow. For starters, go here and here and here--scroll down halfway and here. Also, remember, for the most part Campbell's psychological point of view, both collective and personal, was Jungian, and myths arise from the collective unconscious, i.e., myths are a product of the psyche.
Can you offer in a nutshell what Campbell said about the furies? Thanks!
Here is the part in Clemsy's reply by Saffron Rossi that seems to address in a mythical sense the definition of " The Erinyes or Furies " as ( agents ); if you will; of psychological impulses or ( " Complexes " as Cindy has pointed out ). As to reconciling the mythical to the archetypal reference Robert Walters was using there may or may not be ( wiggle ) room here:
The Erinyes are ancient deities in the Greek tradition who “are the avengers of offences against blood-relations on the mother’s and father’s side, of all offences against moral, and finally even natural law.” They represent “a human relation intensely felt…the outraged soul of the dead man crying for vengeance.”
From Levy's article of suggesting possibly substituting the word possession for complex I do not feel quailfied to comment on this. However from Bett's point of view he seems to be saying; ( if I am understanding him correctly ); the failure of the psyche or subconscious to reconcile or " Adapt " these complexes leads to a sort of " meltdown " from within which is the shortcurcuit or lightswitch that is in part responsible for the reality disconnect which leads to " the act ". ( I am still digesting the material here so please forgive a layman's very clumsy interpretation )
. Am I getting the jest of this?
( In the end to summerize here ): " Would there be any further thoughts that should be considered along this line? "