Lecture I.1.1 - The Celebration of Life

This forum is for focused discussions on The Collected Lectures of Joseph Campbell. Each lecture has its own dedicated conversation.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

In my very humble opinion, this is the whole problem of what I call the delusional hippy liberalism that came out of the 60s. It was, destroy, destroy, destroy the establishment, the orthodoxy – but not having anything to offer to replace it. Destroy first and figure out what to do once this first order of business is achieved.
Oops...your bias slip is showing. :wink:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

jonsjourney wrote:Sometimes for the forest to grow and thrive, it must be burned down.
The irony is that this is exactly what is required for a forest to grow and thrive, as the Department of Forestry is finally learning today. In California, Native Americans used fire to maintain healthy forests; they would set fires in the Sierra Nevada that burned up to 80,000 acres at a time (something we would consider a disaster today).

And, of course without a fire, the pine cones don't open and there is no growth.

A wonderful metaphor ...

(Not to wander off on a tangent, but the hippies in the sixties and the far more politically active campus radicals offered a number of detailed models as to what should replace the existing political system [the campus revolutionaries were generally Marxist in tone, compared to the more utopian hippies]; if anything, both groups were somewhat longwinded about it. I'm not surprised many think otherwise; few who didn't support changing the system ever read the reams of material produced on the subject, generally ridiculing and dismissing what brief snippets made it past the media filters

... my bias shines through as well - but I have stacks of material in the closet to support my memories) .

How does any of this relate to Campbell's statement regarding the value of heresy?

Well, as Mickey Hart (one of the drummers in the Grateful Dead) points out, Joseph Campbell, with his impeccable credentials, conservative attire, and Republican tendencies, turned out to be the ultimate subversive ...

creekmary
Associate
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:13 am
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Post by creekmary »

So people sometimes use the word ‘ya’ll’ - which is still sort of low-life but it serves a purpose.
Not to change the subject or anything....or be heretical (that's almost on topic), but I am sure I am not the only Southerner whose mouth dropped open with the exclamation of "low-life!!!". I double dog dare you to call one of those little old blue rinsed DAR daughters of the south a low life.......I wanna be there.....especially if one of those elderly Rhett Butlers is by her side. Y'all would be thoroughly thrashed I'm sure.

Susan

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Hello CreekMary,

I thought it was alright to use the word ‘low-life’ because I use the word ‘y-all’ all the time in these forums. And it don’t make me no never-mind how folks thinks I oughta be talkin and such cause ain’t no one gonna learn me nothin. :D

When Clinton first took office, during the Whitewater investigation, he said he was cooperating with investigators. He said he was asked to submit certain papers, and then said, “I done that.”

I done that? What kind of talk is that from a President I thought to myself? But then, he did turn out to be one of the greatest orators of our time by anyone’s measure.

Jimmy Carter used to say ‘nu-cue- lur’ energy instead of the proper ‘nu-clee-ar’ energy. I think little things like this helped portray him as a slow thinking southerner, when in fact; he was one of the sharpest, most intelligent Presidents we’ve ever had.

A west-coaster like me marvels at the thickness of the accent in certain south-eastern states. It’s one thing to hear it in the movies but to see someone talk naturally with those drawn-out syllables is really very charming. But I remember being in Atlanta on one of the light rail lines. And a pleasant recorded female voice would announce each stop; ‘Dunwoody is our next stop. Our next stop is Dunwoody. Please exit to the right of the train.’ It bothered me that there wasn’t even a hint of a southern accent in her voice. It was just pure standard American English. But when you ride ‘the tube’, the London subway you hear a London accent. And when you ride the subway in Sydney you hear an Aussie accent. But in Atlanta it’s just plain generic American English - which made me wonder how southerners really feel about their accent.

Linguists will say that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. The people in power determine what is and isn’t proper. Perhaps ‘low-life’ wasn’t the best choice of words. I should have said, ‘avant garde’. Choosing a French word would have portrayed me as less of a ‘low-life’. French or Latin words tend to be class lifters. And for reasons that I am not responsible for, southern words and accents tend to be class lower-ers. I’m not sayin’ it’s right, or it’s fair. It’s not fair that ebonics, the Black American dialect should be so designated, or that Spanish, in America should be thought of as a lower status language than English. Or that British English should be thought classier than American English. But these linguistic hierarchies naturally form.

Class and language is a fun topic. I remember the editor of the New York Times refusing to have the words ‘no-fly zone’ printed in his newspaper. He made them use ‘non-flight zone’ because he said ‘no-fly’ is baby talk. He didn’t win the day and we all use the words ‘no-fly’ now – I think.

But I’ll be careful not to use the word ‘low-life’ again, even if the President saying ‘I dun that’ or ‘nu-cue-lur’ sounds ‘low-life’ to me.


* * * * * * *

My but you give me a lot to respond to Bodhi. And I can see I brought it upon myself with all my examples. I believe that if a people can’t see the forest for the trees the best response is NOT to burn it down! :D

From your examples it seems to me you’re defining the words so that anything that doesn’t work, or that you don’t perceive as working, as orthodoxy and anything that does work as heresy. So Lavoisier was orthodox when he declared meteorites a rural legend, but he must have been heretical when he declared air was made of two gases of oxygen and nitrogen. The Catholic Church is orthodox with its Nicene Creed even though it has served its members for 1600 years. But perhaps it was heretical in recognizing Francis of Assisi as a saint. And Jimmy Jones was orthodox with his completely rigid and short lived dogma. But perhaps ISKON, the Hari Krishnas were not. Reaganites were orthodox because they believed too strongly in free markets. But Soviet Russia was orthodox by using a 100% tax rate.

I don’t know. I just can’t make judgments like this. An organization needs some avenue for adaptability and change, to be sure. And we could if, we wanted to, call that heresy. And an organization needs some cohesive regulation. But if that cohesive regulation proves to be detrimental to the organization we could if we wanted call that failure orthodoxy.

Given these qualifiers Campbell was absolutely correct. But I think it was something else. I think he was playing it up for a reason.
…hippies in the sixties and the far more politically active campus radicals offered a number of detailed models as to what should replace the existing political system

How does any of this relate to Campbell's statement regarding the value of heresy?

Well, as Mickey Hart (one of the drummers in the Grateful Dead) points out, Joseph Campbell, with his impeccable credentials, conservative attire, and Republican tendencies, turned out to be the ultimate subversive ...

- Bodhi
I have to concur. It has everything to do with Campbell’s statement that orthodoxy is the death of a mythology – and heresy the life.

Campbell, I’ve learned, was prone to hyperbole. I think this is part of what made him such an engaging speaker. He once said that all novels since Emile Zola have been the work of ‘didactic pornographers’. But could that possible include the works of Mann and Joyce? I think he got carried away just to make a point.


He once said in the ‘Wings of Art’ lectures that Oliver Cromwell made Hitler seem like an amateur. But I think he was just making the point that Cromwell wasn’t quite the great secular saint that many people make him out to be considering his treatment of the Irish people.


When Campbell says that heresy is the life of a mythology and orthodoxy the death I believe he was partaking in the same hyperbole, and catering to the zeitgeist. Many of his lectures we have were given in the late 60s. And for many the spirit of the times was a call for a complete dismantling of all institutions. The two party political system had to go (tweedledee and dum) The economy had to be totally restructured. The university had to be destroyed and rebuilt by younger professors. Western religion had to be replaced by a quasi-eastern variety. Even the family was under attack because the family was the nucleus of an evil patriarchy. And people were really excited about these dramatic changes that were about to take place. They weren’t just the pipe dreams of a few powerless bohemians and intellectuals.

Here is a passage from a wonderful book that examines the era:
P165 Leary and Ram Dass still sang the praises of LSD, psilocybin, and Ecstasy. “Psychedelics allowed us to override our habits of thinking.” Ram Dass said. “It opened up our link to the East and to an incredibly rich philosophical, psychological, and spiritual heritage.” Millions of people used psychedelics as rites of passage in the sixties and seventies, he said, opening up a generation to ways of thinking that go beyond the rational and intellectual, into the “intuitive, transcendental, unitive perspective.”

Sure, there were mistakes of excess in the psychedelic revolution. “Tim and I had a chart on the wall about how soon everyone would be enlightened. We talked about how we would retool Detroit when nobody wanted cars anymore. We found out that real change is harder. We downplayed the fact that the psychedelic experience isn’t for everyone.” Giving LSD to undergraduates, Alpert [Ram Dass] said, was “my personal error…. I did that for many reasons. Sexual was not excluded.”

“The Sixties scared the hell out of the culture, he added, “Because they showed another potential exists for people.”

Following Our Bliss, Don Lattin, 2003
Interestingly, Ram Dass’s dream of retooling Detroit may have finally come true.

You’re right Bodhi. People had ideas about the way things ought to be. Campbell had great ideas. But in my trying-to-be-humble opinion most were just so off-the-wall delusional they aren’t even worth considering. And this general attitude of destroying in order to rebuild is still with us.

There’s a recent popular book, an autobiography titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man that provided me with a clear view of America from the Left. Toward the end of the book the author recalls the sudden inspiration for his writing the book. He speaks of the American revolution of 1775:
I wondered what had motivated them, why those colonial Americans were willing to step out of line. … And then it came to me: words.

The telling of the real story about the British Empire and its selfish and ultimately self-destructive mercantile system had provided that spark. The exposure of the underlying meaning, through the words of men like Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson, fired the imaginations of their countrymen, opened hearts and minds. The colonists began to question, and when they did, they discovered a new reality that cut away at the deceits. They discerned the truth behind the patina, understood the way the British Empire had manipulated, deceived, and enslaved them.

They saw that their English masters had formulated a system and then had managed to convince most people of a lie – that it was the best system mankind could offer, that the prospects for a better world depended on channeling resources through the King of England, that an imperial approach to commerce and politics was the most efficient and humane means of helping the majority of the people – when in fact the truth was that the system enriched only a very few at the expense of the many. This lie, and the resulting exploitation, endured and expanded for decades, until a handful of philosophers, businessmen, farmers, fishermen, frontiersmen, writers, and orators began to speak the truth.

- Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins, 2004
Oh boy. It is no surprise this comes from a man whose previous book was about South American shamanism and titled The World Is As You Dream It.

In fact, the American colonists, the people in power, were hardly ‘enslaved’. In fact, they were more likely to be slave owners. And the British Empire prospered for well over a hundred and fifty years after the American Revolution as did the American states by using the same techniques of mercantile, later to be called capitalist, exploitation.

Perkin’s book makes clear that the American led, corporatocracy as he calls it, is an evil empire that must be destroyed so the good innocent people of the world can be free from oppression. This form of liberalism is alive and well. And JonsJourney does have a great metaphor for describing this attitude when he said that ‘sometimes for a forest to grow and thrive it must be burned down’. It reminds me of a similar saying, another flashback from those remarkable years of the late sixties:

“We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

bless y'all

- NoMan

Myrtle
Associate
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Myrtle »

Clemsy and SongwriterPhil,

Footnote (vi) in the transcript says "Campbell may perhaps have meant fomentation"

Why do you think he may have meant fomentation instead of fermentation?

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Myrtle!
We can see this in the history of religions. One of the great crises, for instance, is the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the pattern of early medieval Christianity began to disintegrate because new ideas were coming in: new possibilities were opening up, a much more highly educated and multitudinous elite class was developing, and the old, comparatively simple ideas no longer held. There was a terrific fermentation[vi] at that time—heresy all over the place. Heresy is the life of a mythology, really, and orthodoxy is the death.
ferment: agitation; unrest; excitement; commotion; tumult
foment: to instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of
There is certainly a difference in nuance between the two words, and both do work within the context. However, given this particular context, heresy as rebellion, which it seems Campbell is implying, would seem to indicate foment may have been the better word choice.

Emphasis on may, of course. :)
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Myrtle
Associate
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by Myrtle »

Thanks Clemsy!

It could be either one, however, I noticed that Campbell has used the word fermentation (and ferment) in several of his books, but I haven't seen the word fomentation (or foment).

littlewing
Associate
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: coastal NC

Post by littlewing »

Hmmm, y'all are missing something here. Great points; and good arguments supporting the flaws and acheivements of both orthodoxy and the heretic. But note both ends of the paradox need the other end to exist. Mythology, as CreekMary points out, is born of an intense need of the soul to explain the question of our relationship to the largest view of reality as we see it. Once upon a time that was the ground we walk on; and the sky. Now it is a vast universe (controversially with an end to it, due to the science/faith of math) and a molten rock we reside on it within it. Current orthodoxy was once heretical stories of a species endowed with the gift/angst of thought, choice, and passion; just as the ancient old-growth forest grew, most directly, from a reality so different as seeds and destructive/lifegiving fire. These are not two sides of a coin; or opposite ends of a stick. They are the circle of Life. They are dependent on each other. The Old Religions still hold their truths about who we are. Campbell certainly showed a lot of love for them; all their stories filled his life!

Here's the circle: New heretical idea (rocks fall from the sky?!) lead to stories and myth that connect those falling rocks with why we care: from how they affect us to why we are who we are. Mythology gels into a belief system; becomes not only an explanation but a guide. As such, it grows into something we can fall back on; refer to for personal growth: an Orthodoxy. Eventually, people love this Orthodoxy to death: it grows more concrete; the rules more rigid. People, being people, use it for not only growth, but greed and control. Rigidity can be a wall of safety to lean on; but will eventually be a wall holding one away from a larger reality. Literally, all the geo-political Walls built, like the Berlin Wall, were built for safety (from the pov of those who built them).

Joseph Campbell never suggested we leave the circle of heresy/myth/orthodoxy/heresy; he was basicly a history teacher who documented the heresies of the past that led to the "new orthodoxies". The sons of Abraham were the heretics of their time; Christianity was heretical to the Roman Gods. Other heresies that didn't overturn entire orthodoxies have made as big a difference in human social evolution, such as the minstrels' song of love marriages over arranged marriages. Now, a body can choose either of those; both are now orthodox ways of setting out an adult life with one other person; or one can choose a heretical path... today in our society, gay marriage is that. Of course, it gets complex. One society's orthodoxy is another society's heretical path.

I think what noman warns of is the huge disruption that total overthrow brings. Setting out to destroy a "wrong" instead of or without also championing a "right" is like burning down the whole forest at once to start over with seeds and fire. The ancient forest may come from seeds and fire; but a healthy forest combines fire with nurse trees; overstory with open meadow to transition from succession to succession. We are finding out from hard experience that if you cut all the Old Growth away from the forest, you lose the balance of the forest; and the whole thing dies. Our current Orthodoxy buys into its stories as The Truth rather than the Metaphor; the explainer of Truth. That is its rigidity; its Wall. Indeed, the current Orthodoxies' stories are still those of a time when we thought of ourselves as enveloped by only ground and sky. They are wonderful stories; we need to keep them. But we need a little heresy here; we need to keep the circle moving. It is stagnant. There are as many ways as there are people to do that, both from the inside and the outside of either local orthodoxy or any orthodoxy. What can be tried will be tried; or so it seems is the human way. Maybe it's a law of evolution on this planet! But noman's warning is a good one. Especially if the destruction of overthrow becomes a physical violent war. Frankly, the planet just can't stand anymore of that. Our wars do more to throw world ecology into the No Life zone than our fossil fuel living. We can change our lifestyle and still wipe life as we know it, including our species, off the planet with wars. There's a story the New Myth can tell if telling can prevent it.

lw

"We shadowdance the silent war within.
The shadowdance, it never ends...
Never ends, never ends.
Shadowboxing the Apocalypse, yet again.." John Perry Barlow of the Grateful Dead

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I imagine you would be hard pressed to find many on these forums who want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. My earlier quote was definitely coming from the view that the burning of the forest is part of a process of regrowth...just for the record. I probably should have made that clearer.

That being said, there are some systems that are better off being destroyed. Slavery, women as 'second class citizens' (voting, employment discrimination), religious oppression (Crusades, Jihads), racism, Inquisitions...and on and on...are all systems we are/would be better off without. No?[/i]
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

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

Post by Neoplato »

JJ Wrote:
That being said, there are some systems that are better off being destroyed. Slavery, women as 'second class citizens' (voting, employment discrimination), religious oppression (Crusades, Jihads), racism, Inquisitions...and on and on...are all systems we are/would be better off without. No?[/i]
I think this goes back to the “cootie” discussion. Unfortunately it seems to take a long time before these “cooties” become extinct. I’m becoming more and more confident that we are seeing an evolution of the mind occurring. Maybe we’re all turning into a bunch of “pod people”, but if we are, it sure feels good. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

littlewing
Associate
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: coastal NC

Post by littlewing »

Goodness, jj! Sorry I looked like I was correcting your analogy of forest burning! No, no; I read your post and nodded my head...It was a fine and appropriate analogy. I loved it! So I just kinda took it and ran the ball farther down the field... i thought... :?

As I read the posts, I heard choosing heresy over orthodoxy; noman defending orthodoxy and/or defending it against mindless revolution. My point was that heresy/orthodoxy are interdependent, as is the forest ecosystem. I used your analogy because I loved it.
That being said, there are some systems that are better off being destroyed. Slavery, women as 'second class citizens' (voting, employment discrimination), religious oppression (Crusades, Jihads), racism, Inquisitions...and on and on...are all systems we are/would be better off without. No?[/i]
Of Course!!

lw :oops:
just goes to show...the meaning of life...is 42!

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

I loved your post, Littlewing, which reflects much of my own thinking - I just haven't articulated it well enough. Of course orthodoxy and heresy will always be with us - and today's heresy all too often morphs into tomorrow's orthodoxy.

Just because something is heretical - i.e., a different belief from established doctrine - doesn't mean it is right (sorry flat-earthers).

I certainly haven't intended to convey that it's a question of choosing a particular heresy over orthodoxy, nor am I supporting the idea of revolution - not sure where that came from. No one - certainly not Campbell, and certainly not me - has suggested "total overthrow" is necessarily a good thing. A heresy doesn't autmatically mean revolution - it's just a different opinion (e.g., Luther didn't want to smash the Catholic Church or create a competing structure - otherwise he would not have attended the Diet at Wurms; Luther wanted to work within the existing structure - but that was not allowed).

On the other hand, Campbell's observation of the danger of orthodoxy rings true. What makes a belief orthodox (established doctrine) is that it's proponents allow no dissenting opinions. From the orthodox perspective, any other opinions are automatically wrong and must be excluded - other ideas shouldn't even be discussed, and anyone who entertains them is a threat to be removed.

That mindset will always be with us - and Campbell warns us against that mindset. That's where I agree with Campbell (and I suspect is where we all do).

This doesn't mean any orthodox interpretation is automatically wrong - but even if factually correct, the orthodox mindset that allows no consideration of alternative opinions, that excommunicates, imprisons, or kills those who think differently, turns its underlying mythology into dogma divorced from reason and experience.

Observation tells us that any system that imposes its beliefs by fiat on those who disagree ultimately fails - it either collapses of its own weight (e.g., Soviet communism), or ultimately adapts to embrace heresies it once opposed that have the weight of evidence and collective observation on their side (Galilleo and the Inquisition notwithstanding, the Catholic Church eventually accepted that the sun does not revolve around the earth - that heretical idea, while revolutionary, did not overthrow the Church).

The sun is yellow and the sky is blue - a universal understanding, but is that "orthodoxy?" No existing power structure censures the Grateful Dead for declaring "the sky is yellow and the sun is blue" in Scarlet Begonias, though orthodoxy tends to favor the concrete and literal over metaphor.

The systems of thought that have the most life seem to be those that encourage the exploration of alternative ideas, and allow the expression of dissenting opinions. Democracy comes the closest to this in politics ... and then, there is science.

For example, despite some orthodox tendencies (e.g., the French Academy's decree about meteorites), the scientific method, by definition, encourages choice and the exploration of alternate ideas.

Was Newton's theory of gravity a heresy, as we understand heresy today? That's a difficult case to make, as there really was no orthodox position on the question, no established doctrince - no one ever gave it much thought - and so no attempt to stifle Newton.

Is Newton's theory, once universally accepted, then an example of orthodoxy? Yet defects in Newton's theory of gravity brought to light by Einstein, despite turning a few heads, were embraced by the scientific community - hardly an example of an orthodox response.

Similarly quantum mechanics and the many competing theories of particle physics, from the Copenhagen Interpretation to the Many Worlds theory, or bootstrap theory vs. string theory, have been hotly debated - but it's difficult to label any of these orthodox or heretical, as debate and disputation on these subjects is not only allowed, but encouraged. No one is drummed out of the scientific community because they embraced string theory or the bootstrap theory.

Eventually a scientific consensus forms, and ideas that don't work are generally discarded (e.g., the clockwork cosmos, bootstrap theory), but that consensus is constantly shifting, and so we aren't forced to pay lip service to the science of the 16th century - or even the 20th - today.

When competing viewpoints are encouraged, neither "orthodox" nor "heretical" really apply, and there is then no orthodox mindset that imprisons science within a rigid straitjacket that halts scientific progress, and no heretical mindset that is perceived as a threat. Of course, given human nature, these polarized perspectives do emerge from time to time - but the tolerance of exploring alternative ideas tends to innoculate science against the worst abuses of either extreme.

I'll admit I don't quite understand what the controvery is in this conversation.

Has anyone said that the polarity between orthodoxy and heresy will one day no longer be with us? My belief is the opposite - that a heresy often morphs into orthodoxy once it becomes the prevailing belief, in much the same way as the Hero all-too-often morphs into the Tyrant Holdfast.

Is anyone suggesting that only one set of beliefs should be allowed (orthodoxy), and everyone must refrain from expressing a difference of opinion? I don't think so (in which case we are all heretics).

Is anyone taking issue with Campbell's observation that the effects of orthodoxy tend to concretize and rigidify the metaphorical attributes of a mythology into a literalistic theology?

I'm not sure why the wrangling. I'll admit I did feel the need to correct the impression that many who criticized the Establishment in the sixties offered nothing in its place. True, many ideas offered were idealistic, utopian, and simplistic; others - like an all volunteer army, or adopting universal health care - are now embraced by left and right (though they may disgree on how to achieve the latter).

I do agree with Noman about revolution in general - but revolution is not congruent with heresy, though repressing heresy can lead to revolution. (Ironically, in communist dogma, constant revolution is the orthodox belief).

But Joseph Campbell's observation about the effect of orthodoxy on mythology in no way negates Noman's beliefs about the dangers of revolution, which Campbell also shares:
I don't believe in the dismemberment of society as a whole. I have been sitting here at the corner of Waverly Place and Sixth Avenue, a stone's throw from Washington Square, for thirty-odd years, and I have heard every soapbox orator the changing social conditions have produced. And it is always the same story. It has been one experience of my life that times have always been just about to change and nothing ever happened. The same thing is just about to happen all the time.

The current dogma, which is also widespread in the university, is the Marxist idea of the necessity for total revolution. I disagree with Marx, and also with R.D. Laing, when they say you cannot have a harmonized psyche until you have a harmonized society. The whole nature of life has always been one of struggle and destruction and rebirth. There is no such thing as an ideal society, and to wait for it before you can make yourself whole seems to me absurd.

I think that the Buddhist doctrince that all life is sorrowful is the beginning of wisdom. It does away with the illusion that there will be, in some indeterminate future, an unsorrowful, unambiguous, utopian form of life.

Joseph Campbell, interviewed by Sam Keen, Psychology Today, 1971
Note that this is one point of disagreement Campbell has with Laing; elsewhere he applauds Laing's thought on other issues. Joe doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater - though he notes disagreements with Levy-Strauss, Abraham Maslow, and even Carl Jung, these are on specific points ... and Campbell certainly expected others to disagree with him.

Indeed, David Miller, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Syracuse and a good friend of Campbell's, notes that, though he did not tolerate fools lightly, on more than one occasion Joe communicated a sense of excitement, almost glee, at having been proved wrong.

Perhaps, more than anything else, this gives us a sense of Joseph Campbell's take on the value of heresy ...

Namaste,
bodhibliss

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I certainly haven't intended to convey that it's a question of choosing a particular heresy over orthodoxy, nor am I supporting the idea of revolution - not sure where that came from. No one - certainly not Campbell, and certainly not me - has suggested "total overthrow" is necessarily a good thing.
Indeed, the next thing you know, the pigs are walking on two feet in the house!
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

If there has been any controversy in this thread it has been just a friendly battle of metaphors. And if you survey this thread you’ll find a lot of metaphors: Littlewing’s circle, JJ’s forest, my tree of life, and now Orwell’s Animal Farm. As I recall, Orwell’s metaphor ended with the pigs in collusion with the humans. Or was that Charlotte’s Web? Oh I can’t remember that far back. Great story though, and a great metaphor for social change and growth.
I don't think orthodoxy is totally bad. I can see it functioning as a structure to aid personal illumination. People seem to make breakthroughs sitting and chanting or fasting and praying or twirling like a dervish. I think, whatever works.

- CreekMary


* * * * * * *

This doesn't mean that orthodox belief structures - whether in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, as well as some Hindu and Buddhist sects - don't exhibit glimmers of the glories of a living mythology…

- BodhiBliss
So orthodoxy isn’t always the ‘death’ of a mythology. Bodhi continues with a ‘but’:

…but that concretization inevitably leads to the calcification and, ultimately, irrelevance of those belief structures

- Bodhi
Orthodox belief structures exhibit ‘glimmers of the glories of a living mythology’ AND inevitably leads to concretization, calcification, and death of a mythology.
Bodhi goes on:

Of course orthodoxy and heresy, like everything else, have positive and negative effects - but Campbell isn't discussing that; his observation addresses only their effect on the underlying mythology.

- BodhBliss
Wow! That last quote of Bodhi’s is one I’m still grasping to understand.

You see, when Campbell says that heresy is the life and orthodoxy the death of mythology I can’t help but interpret that as being a value judgment. Heresy = good, Orthodoxy = bad. Liberalism = good, conservatism = bad. New myth = good, Old myth = bad. It’s hard not to think of it in this way. To understand why imagine the opposite being stated – perhaps by a fundamentalist preacher:

“Orthodoxy is the life of a mythology, really, and heresy is the death.”

Just like cancer can be the death of a human body, so too are heresies the death of the glories of a living mythology. (To add yet another metaphor)

We can go round and round in circles on this like a cat chasing its tail (one more metaphor) and never find a point of disagreement. But this meditation on heresy/orthodoxy and how it relates to mythology has been interesting to me for a different reason. What I see is a profound truth (profound to me anyway) not just about myth/ritual systems that shape and define cultures, but about systems generally.

Any collection of things that we draw an imaginary line around and name as something that is living, changing, and growing, has this fundamental characteristic of dominance and order that provide it with some integrity, and then there is usurpation and change. More examples, more metaphors:

• The Human Psyche: Campbell often talks about the morphology of the individual through life. From the time we are born we are conditioned to dependency. Then, all too quickly we’re eighteen years old and we’re asked to be responsible. There is something in the human psyche that must be overthrown. A struggle ensues. But as retirement approaches a new challenge will begin and responsibility and worldly attention will have to be usurped for a more spiritual attitude.

• Evolutionary Theory: One of the complaints about evolutionary theory is that the fossil record doesn’t show the gradual change that Darwin proposed. Species and whole groups of species remain fairly stable over most of geological history. In the 70s evolutionary biologists Gould and Eldridge propose a theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to explain that lack of a gradual change in the fossil record. It isn’t as though mammals ‘overthrew’ dinosaurs beginning about 65 million years ago, but in this case the demise of one was the life of the other.

• A Business: Imagine a business where the kids are involved. The kids take on more and more responsibility until, eventually, a passing on of the authority happens, gracefully, or not so gracefully. The kids might have ‘heretical’ ideas about how the business should be run. They may or may not work out well. But that’s the risk and the excitement of it. That’s what keeps the business ‘alive’.


• Art: Beethoven’s symphonies were somewhat shocking to people in his time. So were Picasso’s paintings, and Joyce’s last two novels. It’s not the shock alone that matters, but that these innovations had a permanent effect on their respective art forms. In this sense, heresy is certainly the life of art, and orthodox style inevitably its demise.

This theme of dominance, control, and usurpation shows up in the stories of every complex mythology that I know of, and seems to me to be the primary universal mythological motif.

Now I understand the main ritual of ‘The Burning Man Festival’. Bling! :idea: The burning man represents ‘orthodoxy’, pure and unadulterated by any value judgments.

- NoMan

Image

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

noman wrote:(Quoting Bodhibliss): Orthodox belief structures exhibit ‘glimmers of the glories of a living mythology’ AND inevitably leads to concretization, calcification, and death of a mythology.
Exactly right!

Compare this statement: The city of Rome offers glimmers of a great empire; Rome's current policies do not support an empire.

Where's the contradiction?

No paradox there - would anyone think that somehow suggests Rome is the capital of a living empire today?

"Glimmer" is meant in its sense of "a faint suggestion," or "illusion" (as with fairies). Since even the most literal reading of a myth is based on a myth, or course some of its past glory shines through.

Regarding Burning Man - are you suggesting that there is a structure that forces attendees to believe in and participate in that ritual to the exclusion of competing rituals, and that there is only one way participants are allowed to interpret that ritual or they will be asked to leave?

If so, please share the orthodox interpretation of the ritual - I'm sure thousands on site didn't get the memo.
Last edited by bodhibliss on Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Locked