Monomyth

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Cindy B,

Thank you for the links. I tried to find this information on my own with little success.

I would like to reply to your brief post by apologizing for going negative. It is just that I get so angry when a physicist goes on PBS and presents a speculative theory as if it were gospel. This goes against every rule of science.

Also, I believe that reporting what one sees is one of the primary roles of consciousness. Sometimes I feel like the guy in the crow's nest shouting down to the officers in charge. Telling them what I see. Sometime I cling to the mast and sometime I bask in the sun.

Could a guy in the crow's nest be an archetype?

All,

Before getting back on track I wanted to share a quote with Einherjar. One of my favorite quotes from Shakespeare is, "To be wise and love is beyond man's might." It is very similar to the one you offered.

Getting back to the mono-myth, I think that Campbell’s use of similarities between myths to point beyond the individual to a collective consciousness is a very important milestone. He provided objective evidence for a field of study that was considered subjective and unreliable.

Hindus and Buddhists have been studying consciousness for millennia and have a deep understanding of this aspect of humanity, but this knowledge is based on individual experience. Given that consciousness and experience go hand in hand, the subjective nature of this knowledge is not surprising.

In addition, it appears that there are states of consciousness where one identifies with the Whole or at least a non-localized consciousness, which is profound and life altering experience. This has made the path of consciousness a central theme for both Hinduism and Buddhism. This is a fascinating aspect of humanity which deserves as much objective support as possible. (At this point my Zen Master would be hitting me with a stick, but I stubbornly go on.)

I look forward to the day when, with certainty, I can say to Jim, you are not small. You are the infinite magnificent glorious, immanent and transcendent whole thing becoming tomorrow. You are the dynamic super environment, or to paraphrase Alan Watts, you are the universe playing hide and seek.

Roncooper

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

This is the perfect opportunity to post a Jung quote I've been patiently looking for...
"the instincts form very close analogies to the archetypes-so close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves; in other words, they are patterns of instinctual behavior. The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring than to assume there are instincts." C.W. Vol 9, Part I, pp43-44
and according to E. A. Bennet...
Jung did not coin the word 'archetype'. It has been in use for centuries and means the original pattern or proyotypefrom which copies are made. Thus in Plato's theory of 'ideas' or 'forms', a particular horse for instance, would share a particular quality found in all horses.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Thanks, Neoplato, for the Jung quote. 8)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

jim baird
Associate
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:37 pm

Post by jim baird »

"...I look forward to the day when, with certainty, I can say to Jim, you are not small. You are the infinite magnificent glorious, immanent and transcendent whole thing becoming tomorrow. You are the dynamic super environment, or to paraphrase Alan Watts, you are the universe playing hide and seek...."

Ron, I'm fine with being and/or feeling small. As Professor Campbell says, each of us is identical with that substantial thing which is immanent in all things, just not the us we think we are.

Also, to quote Captain Ahab, "What do you do when you spy a white whale, lads?...Why, sing out!"

I'm Ok with describing the monomyth as an archetype, too. Where does the archetype reside, and where do instinct reside? I don't think we know, scientists or not. I do think that the monomyth is a valid idea. It's like that image of the still body of water, which, blown on by the breeze, breaks up into a multitude of myths that appear differently depending on the point of view of the viewer.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

If the hypothesis is true that archetypes are inherited psychophysical instincts, then there can be little question about their DNA genetic encoding.

For any dying to learn more about archetypes as psychic intincts :P, this article might be of interest: Evolutionary Jungian Psychology

:)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Cindy B,

Thank you for the last two posts. I read the East vs. West comparison until I understood it. I have some comments you might enjoy, but first I have to put my two cents in about the last post dealing with DNA and neurobiology.

To me this is the sort of theory one can develop if the focus is kept narrow and the world of experience that does not conform to this theory is ignored. Mankind is defined as a physical creature concerned with survival and procreation. The magic of life is accepted as having some marginal value, but not worth worrying about. How Depressing!

I would like to present a counter example to support my view.

I was watching the Van Cliburn piano competition. On the final day of competition the players played piano concertos. One of the winners was a very pretty Russian lady in a red dress. She chose to play the very difficult Rachmaninoff piano concerto number three.

Even though the number was extremely challenging, she played beautifully. At about the 20 minute mark of the concerto I thought to myself, this is in her DNA, and I began to laugh. I actually laughed out loud, it was so absurd. In order to fulfill the goals of her body, all she had to do was take her clothes off. I was witnessing the power of transcendent beauty. Thousands of people came together to experience beauty. One might say that she was driven by competition, but according to her bio, she practiced 5 hours a day when she was 5. Competition doesn’t explain it.

I thought more about creativity to see if it was possible to explain it on a physical basis, and it is actually easy. It turns out that almost all creativity involves pushing. We push the paint brush to paint, and the chisel to sculpt. We push keys or strings to play instruments, and to do things like write or compose. We push a column of air when we sing or play horns. We push the floor when we dance. We even push when we procreate, both at conception and at birth. Clearly creativity is pushing, and 85% of creativity is in the fingers. Fingers are much more primary for creation than DNA because DNA can't push. So I have to conclude that creativity is in the fingers, and I have my physcial theory.

Roncooper

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

DNA doesn't "push" when it comes to creativity? True, our concert pianist did the hard work, and, importantly, clearly she had a supportive environment along the way, but she inherited the necessary aptitude for music. Had she not, a love of music and hours of daily practice would not have led her to that stage, just ask my mother. :P (Sorry, Mom!)

:)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

If the hypothesis is true that archetypes are inherited psychophysical instincts, then there can be little question about their DNA genetic encoding.-Cindy
I have a Jung quote for this as well...but I won't get a chance to post it until much later.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

We are in agreement. Aptitude is one of the reasons she was on that stage, but I do not believe it was the dominant reason. There were many reasons and aptitude is one of them.

The purpose of that concert was to create the most beautiful music possible, and for me that was the dominant reason. It is true that the external environment had to be just right, at least out to and including the solar system, and her internal environment had to be also. She had to practice for 20 years to transform her brain into a polished music machine. But there also needed to be inspiration and I believe it was the beauty of the sound she made that inspired her. The motivating force was the transcendent experience of beauty.

The reason I argue against scientists that stress physical aspects is that many deny the importance of the nonphysical aspects, and a significant number don’t believe these aspects are real at all. This wouldn’t matter except that these people speak with authority, and this narrow view can cause great damage. “It’s in my DNA,” could become the greatest excuse in the history of mankind.

I think the reason that scientists down play or even deny the reality of the transcendent is psychological. As a scientist, to maximize the scope of my understanding I have to believe that everything can be understood, so that I don’t discount an area of research out of hand. Every mystery should be solved. This important belief that there is nothing outside the reach of the intellect can lead to the false conclusion that it is true. Second, as any experimentalist knows, acts of God are a bad thing. They mess up the experiment. So what do I do? I focus on those areas that yield verifiable results and I pray that God stays as far away as possible. Nonscientific areas aren’t worth bothering about, and because of this, religious experiences like unconditional love becomes chemicals and hormones.

I believe that everything that can be understood should be understood, but that this should be done without denigrating that which is beyond understanding.

Roncooper

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

OK...as promised...the Jung quote. This may not be what was expected. :wink:
"These and other experiences like them were sufficient to give me a clue:it is not a question of a specifically racial heredity, but of a universally human charateristic. Nor is it a question of inhereted ideas, but of a functional disposition to produce the same, or very similar ideas. This disposition I later called archetype." CW Vol. 5 p. 102
The italics are from the E.A. Bennet text. Isn't it interesting I just came across this quote last night? :shock: Coincidence? 8)
Last edited by Neoplato on Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Yes, Neoplato, this quote is a good example of Jung's working out his ideas along the way. :)
Last edited by Cindy B. on Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

About your last post, Ron, I hear you. And while I personally give credence to many findings of science, I have a healthy appreciation for its place in the scheme of things, too. For instance, go here. :wink:
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Clemsy wrote:Also, it is Campbell's primary thesis that all myths, everywhere, tell the same story, just dressed differently according to culture. He depends heavily on Jung's idea of archetypes, which are genetically encoded in our DNA.

So our myths, our religions, don't define our differences so much as they define our collective humanity.
Having explored archetypes and the collective unconscious a bit, with this post I'd like to circle back to the notions of story and monomyth from the psychological perspective. That we are likely genetically predisposed to individuation and the hero's journey is illustrated nicely by this case study of a four-year old girl's personal myth, an easy read. Enjoy!



A Case Study of a Monomyth Created by a Little Girl
Gabriel Cavaglion, Ph.D. (2009)
http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/ ... p21-46.pdf


Abstract. This paper analyzes a story written by a four-year-old girl that includes a total of 18 pictures which she entitled “The Little Princess and Her Butterfly.” This paper focuses mainly on the verbal messages. Its purpose is to examine the child’s story solely as an expression of a collective narrative following a pattern that “was established long before man developed a reflective consciousness” (Jung, 1983, p. 76). This story can be seen as an unprocessed primordial kernel bound to unconscious, collective archetypal content and processes indicative of a universal developmental myth.

Conclusion. By the term collective unconscious, Jungian psychology claims that part of man’s unconscious psyche, regardless of all the differences between individuals, remains the same in all men and women, “just as certain aspects of the anatomical structure of Homo Sapiens are the same in all individuals precisely because they are human” (von Franz, 1999, p. 76). Since fairy tales disclose certain common themes and structures, we may assume that they spring from this most universal substrate of the human psyche. A tale can work toward the conscious realization and active fulfillment of an original fundamental wholeness. This appears as potential wholeness in early childhood in the form of symbols in dreams and fantasies which manifest themselves again and again in periods of transformations and in times of crisis. These tales are of significance not only for the life of an individual but, taken as a whole, they represent part of an immense “web of destiny” which exhibits a dynamic structure that applies to all of humanity...


:)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

For any interested in exploring the monomyth/hero's journey from the point of veiw of Jungian individuation, please go here. :)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Locked