Lecture I.1.5 - The Vitality of Myth

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.

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

Lecture I.1.5 - The Vitality of Myth

Post by Clemsy »

Image

Lecture I.1.5 - The Vitality of Myth

Download this Lecture: HERE

Read the Transcript: HERE
Last edited by Clemsy on Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

One World: You Are the Source and Creator of the Gods

Post by Clemsy »

From Lecture I.1.5 - The Vitality of Myth:
…And so out of space, the earth has come. And out of the earth, we have come with a consciousness to know the world—what we are to know, and what we have inside are exactly congruent.

This gives a totally new pitch to the accent, a new focus to the mystery of being—it’s right here now. Now this is an old story really, it’s been said time and time again by others. You will find it in the Upanishads, the 9th Century B.C. Worship this god, worship that god, one god after another. Where is the creator of the gods? The creator of the gods is one’s own self. Look to your self, and follow it as you would follow the footsteps of a lost cow. By following those you will find the source of the gods.

There is a precisely similar line in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The soul of the dead is called Osirus, because it is one with the ultimate being of the universe. And there comes a moment when, in the chapter on the opening of the mouth, we read “I am yesterday, today and tomorrow. I have the power to be born a second time. I am the source and creator of all the gods.” This is an old theme that has come back again in a new sense.

And meanwhile there have been what might be called “Exoteric, popular mythologies” telling us that the gods are out there, that they created us from clay, they created us to be their servant, we are to obey and to serve them. On the contrary, they are the projections of our own consciousness, and we are to burn them up if we can’t use them, and bring forth others that are good for today. This is an old story too.
There is so much to delve into in this lecture, as usual, that the best place to start is with a bit of resonance: what jumps out and says, “Me! Me!”

So let’s start with the above. I’ve been considering this rather heretical thought for some time, that god’s source is deep within one’s self. This is where the tension between the ideas of the personal and impersonal god comes from, no? So if I’m the source of god, aren’t all gods personal?

Interesting thought.

At one level, yes. I am the source of the mental construct. That model is mine. I think about god and give the idea form. But the ‘god’ came from deeper than the conscious place where we put things together into something comprehensible.

On the other hand, what if the model is inputted from outside, like a computer program? “This is god. This is his nature. And yes, god is a him.” From there, the conscious model is constructed according to specifications but modified according to one’s own understanding, limitations and projections.

Has this god come from that deeper source in you? Not sure about that one but perhaps to a degree. If the god is ‘personal’ in that it has a separate existence as en entity, than what is it really?

A personification of a bit of programming, comprehension and projection?

For me, this explains how so many Christians can justify all manner of un-Christ like behavior. At the end of the day, a personal god is the personification of your own limitations. In the long run, such a god, no matter the mythic orientation, will reflect one’s own psychology: desires, biases, assumptions.

What are we worshiping, when we worship such gods?

I think this is the answer to Paul Tillich’s question, which Campbell quotes in this lecture:
One’s god is one’s highest concern. That is your true god, that which you would die for, that which you would sacrifice for. And if you sacrifice others for yourself, for your own development, then what would you say was your god?
The impersonal god is also a model, but a model in which consciousness declines further definition and acknowledges that mind has a limited volume.

You can fill the cup with water, but don’t turn you back on the ocean.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Clemsy »

You can fill the cup with water, but don’t turn you back on the ocean.
The more I think about it, the more I like this image. How many religions dip the cup into the ocean to give it some comprehensible form and then say the cup is god?
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Cindy B. »

Here's a Jung quote, Clemsy, that you may appreciate: Religion is a defense against the experience of God.

As for the question, "On the other hand, what if the model is inputted from outside, like a computer program?," my personal belief, which is similar to both Campbell's and Jung's, is that such "input" indeed arises from within but is subject from without to modifications in expression. From this point of view, spirituality is of nature and instinctual, and among the psychic instincts, or archetypes, inherent in the human psyche is the archetype of God; and one of Jung's major insights, in my opinion, was showing that the central archetype of Self, or "the archetype of wholeness," is ultimately indistinguishable from the God archetype. So, Campbell: Worship this god, worship that god, one god after another. Where is the creator of the gods? The creator of the gods is one’s own self. Look to your self, and follow it as you would follow the footsteps of a lost cow. By following those you will find the source of the gods. And Jung: I cannot prove to you that God exists, but my work has proved empirically that the pattern of God exists in every man, and that this pattern in the individual has at its disposal the greatest transforming energies of which life is capable. Find this pattern in your own individual self and life is transformed. So I would agree, too, with Campbell that the belief among some that God or the gods are "out there" beyond nature and human beings is a psychic projection of unconscious contents arising from the collective unconscious, the metaphorical repository of archetypes.

"Me! Me!"? Of course, and also "We! We!" :wink:

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

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 Cindy!

All that does make perfect sense to me... however, it's the tendency to project our own limitations onto the idea and then sacrifice others on the altar of that god. As Tillich asks, "if you sacrifice others for yourself, for your own development, then what would you say was your god?"

I would say that god is not God, but a form, not the Self, but a persona, the cup rather than the water.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Neoplato »

Clemsy Wrote:
I would say that god is not God, but a form, not the Self, but a persona, the cup rather than the water.
So to paraphrase; the “typical” god of “religion”, which I think you refer to as the “personal” god (which I call the dualistic god) is nothing more than an over glorified persona. Am I hitting the mark? If so, it looks like I’m sitting in the choir. :wink:
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. »

I do hear what you're saying, Clemsy, and agree that your scenario as described differs from mine. The commonality, of course, is the act of projection and its potential effects.

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

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

Post by Clemsy »

I do hear what you're saying, Clemsy, and agree that your scenario as described differs from mine.
I'm not sure how our scenarios differ all that much, Cindy.
... such "input" indeed arises from within but is subject from without to modifications in expression. From this point of view, spirituality is of nature and instinctual, and among the psychic instincts, or archetypes, inherent in the human psyche is the archetype of God.
The archetype gives us the impulse, a sort of schema within which 'god' can be given comprehensible form or as Campbell would say, a mask. While this is certainly an expression of the archetype, losing the symbol for the form really isn't, no? The mask isn't the archetype, the referent is. When the referent is lost, what's left? Projections, right?

Unless I have a misunderstanding of Jung's idea and Campbell's rendering of it?
...the “typical” god of “religion”, which I think you refer to as the “personal” god (which I call the dualistic god) is nothing more than an over glorified persona. Am I hitting the mark?
Yes, Neo. That's precisely what I'm saying, except when the personal god is recognized as a symbol.

Theologically yours,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Neoplato »

Clemsy Wrote:
except when the personal god is recognized as a symbol
:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: Just had a mini "ah ha" there (reading Jung does clarify things) :D .
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. »

Okay, Clemsy, I'm understanding you better as we go along. We're on the same page, yet I hadn't directly addressed the personification of God as you did.
Clemsy wrote:The archetype gives us the impulse, a sort of schema within which 'god' can be given comprehensible form or as Campbell would say, a mask. While this is certainly an expression of the archetype, losing the symbol for the form really isn't, no? The mask isn't the archetype, the referent is. When the referent is lost, what's left? Projections, right?
Here I want to mention first that the primary symbol is never lost. Just like Vegas, what happens in the collective unconscious stays in the collective unconscious. :wink: As you indicated, the symbol is a dynamism, one that is experienced wholly via intuition, and at this level of psychic functioning, the symbol as archetypal image arises as an analagous formation of a psychic instinct or archetype. Archetypes may be nature’s givens, but inherent in a psychic instinct is the potential for variation and creative expression, so what is eventually observable at the conscious level among diverse peoples is related patterns of ideas and behavior and symbolic derivatives that are linked to a core archetype, say, the god archetype. The primary symbol is inclusive of all potential forms and patterns, and its expression eventually becomes differentiated as it nears and reaches consciousness.

And there’s the rub. Humankind takes pride in its consciousness, yet it’s the nature of conscious functioning to be willful--powerful, to discriminate and to classify, and to assign value across the board in terms of either/or, so what was once whole becomes fractured. At the same time, the experience of symbols at this level is many times removed from their source, such that their dynamic power as instinctual images is attenuated and subject to extensive modification by an also powerful collective conscious; as you said, the cup is not the water nor is the mask God, but the cup and the mask are easily recognized at the conscious level and easier to relate to. Still, most psychic functioning, whether personal or collective, does occur at the unconscious level, the primary reason why projection plays such a prominent role in our lives. It’s human nature to project what is unrecognized at the conscious level as originating from within onto what appears to exist and to originate from without, even God. God has a human face or mask and all that implies because the god archetype is actually an expression of what is divine in humankind. Which of the many personifications of God or the gods might emerge is dependent on the collective that gives voice to the archetype. As for the individual who seeks to discover God for him/herself, in order to approach the divine within, he or she must first consciously disconnect from the collective and its established symbology and withdraw the related projections. Piece of cake!

Cindy


P.S. This quote from Jung is important, too, though, I think: "This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is the medium from which the religious experience seems to flow. [Italics mine.] As to what the further cause of such an experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem."
Last edited by Cindy B. on Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Cindy Wrote:
Humankind takes pride in its consciousness, yet it’s the nature of conscious functioning to be willful--powerful, to discriminate and to classify, and to assign value across the board in terms of either/or, so what was once whole becomes fractured.
Hence, the need for us to activity seek to make it whole again; not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of all life.
At the same time, the intuitive experience of symbols at this level is many times removed from their source, such that their dynamic power as instinctual images is attenuated and subject to extensive modification by an also powerful collective conscious; as you said, the cup is not the water nor is the mask God, but the cup and the mask are easily recognized at the conscious level and easier to relate to.
Yep. Agree there. It’s much easier to deal with the literal interpretation of symbols.
Still, most psychic functioning, whether personal or collective, does occur at the unconscious level, the primary reason why projection plays such a prominent role in our lives. It’s human nature to project what is unrecognized at the conscious level as originating from within onto what appears to exist and to originate from without, even God.
It’s just a shame that we reinforce this literal aspect of thinking instead of promoting ways to understand the meanings behind the projections.
God has a human face or mask and all that implies because the god archetype is actually an expression of what is divine in humankind. Which of the many personifications of God or the gods might emerge is dependent on the collective that gives voice to the archetype.
IMHO, the common aspects of humanity are more important to realize than how to be a good member of a specific society (I think this is what is meant by your signature.) :)
As for the individual who seeks to discover God for him/herself, in order to approach the divine within, he or she must first consciously disconnect from the collective and its established symbology and withdraw the related projections. Piece of cake!
I would substitute your word “collective” with “society” and/or cultural identification. It only takes about 35-40 years. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

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

Post by jonsjourney »

I think that Campbell is, as usual, trying to help us see the concept of god in a larger, more universal way. The question always seems to lead back to why people need that external directive in the form of a god. Civilizations have created and cast off gods throughout history, right? Then came the great thinkers (in the West) of the Age of Enlightenment. Logic became the method for slaying the trolls, dragons and gods. Since that time, humans have struggled, to a large degree, to find some resolution to this big question.

In the East, the Hindus and later the Buddhists were already willing to toss out the idea of an external god thousands of years ago, but they were not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. "God" is within us goes the philosophy. At the same time, the concept is also outside us, indeed all around us. The universe and the human are one. The rock and the bull are one. The moon and the sun....on and on. What is it about this view that so many find so hard to grasp? I am not saying that this is "the" answer, but I know so many Western minds who will not even give it a chance! Why???

We have seen some texts and passages in the Abrahamic traditions which support this concept, yet they are typically omitted or ignored by practitioners of the "big 3". The question that fascinates me every single day is why so many people NEED an external god, with a physical heaven...or physical promised land, and an eternal soul in order to find a functional spirituality. This is clearly a question of psychology. Is it too much responsibility for one person to be responsible for their participation in the cycle of the universe? Is it easier to lay the process at the feet of an external determiner? Does this absolve us from certain responsibilities and provide the psychological 'relief' needed to go on with the participation?

All big questions to be sure.

I tend to think that much of this stems from the human desire to possess. We grasp at the physical in order to satiate the lack of clarity in the realm of the spiritual. I think we want to leave a mark on the world that says "JJ was here...dammit!" So many of us build lives based on the accumulation and retention of objects. We seek permanence in an impermanent universe. These objects reinforce the illusion of a permanent self. Why else would we place stone markers on our graves? We falsely believe that that stone is in some way timeless and will hold that image of our name as eternity unfolds. But the mightiest stone is worn away by the trickling of the smallest stream.

All is impermanent.
All is without a self.
"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:
What is it about this view that so many find so hard to grasp? I am not saying that this is "the" answer, but I know so many Western minds who will not even give it a chance! Why???
IMHO institutional beliefs, tradition, culture. Unfortunately, the ability to reason is not part of the educational process. :(
The question that fascinates me every single day is why so many people NEED an external god, with a physical heaven...or physical promised land, and an eternal soul in order to find a functional spirituality. This is clearly a question of psychology. Is it too much responsibility for one person to be responsible for their participation in the cycle of the universe? Is it easier to lay the process at the feet of an external determiner? Does this absolve us from certain responsibilities and provide the psychological 'relief' needed to go on with the participation?
Maybe it's easier to be a servant and blame the outcome on something else? Then again, the ability control people I feel is also a motivator.
All is impermanent.
All is without a self.
Slightly different for me JJ:

All is impermanent.
All is without an ego-self.
Everything is life. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

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 all! Let's see what I can squeeze in...
Here I want to mention first that the primary symbol is never lost.
Cindy, how about not consciously realized or discovered? Given that the archetype provides the impulse, and any given god is a product of that impulse, what people do with it consciously depends, it would seem, on a number of factors. The symbol may never be lost, per se, but if it isn't consciously recognized as a symbol it's processed consciously as something else.

Where would this be on Bloom's Taxonomy as regards symbols and metaphor?

Image

This addresses Neo's comment;
Unfortunately, the ability to reason is not part of the educational process.
I've been working with young people long enough to suspect, rather strongly, that the ability to reason is not taught. Education attempts to maximize an individual, pre-existing potential. All kids take art. Not all of them are very good at it. Same with music, writing, etc. For whatever reason, and as I've argued in these forums numerous times, a large percentage of people have limited ability to deal with abstracts. I can present a formula for interpreting metaphor until I'm blue in the face, but unless one can get to at least the levels of application and analysis one isn't going to get very far in seeing beyond the mask.

So Neo, I do take exception to your comment. The vast majority of teachers I know go to great lengths to teach young people how to think... but nature and nurture present us with various potentials the moment they walk in the door. Sometimes the nurture factor is a blessing. Too often a curse. If the 'system' didn't treat everyone as if they were born of the same mother with the same genes (NCLB), we'd make more allowances for nature.

That's one factor.

Another, just as, if not more, problematic, is the tendency of very high order thinkers to ban reason from the topic at all. (See Orson Card thread) This is the dark side of faith, which can result in justification for some pretty abhorrent human behavior, if not some problematic conclusions:

Example:
On June 25, the Arizona Senate’s Retirement and Rural Development Committee discussed the prospects for uranium mining in the state. During the hearing, State Senator Sylvia Allen (R), the vice chairman of the committee, argued in favor of mining by saying that the earth “has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with.” “We need to get the uranium here in Arizona, so this state can get the money from it,” argued Allen.
So the Prince of Peace can easily morph into a God of War or Profit. The archetype doesn't define.

JJ, I've found something of yours to disagree with!
Civilizations have created and cast off gods throughout history, right?
Actually, I find this kind of thing profoundly rare. Until Christianity and Islam came along, gods were absorbed far more than cast off. In fact, the reason Romans persecuted the Christians was because they came along with a 'new' god and 'new' religion which made absolutely no sense to them. As long as Christianity was Jewish cult, they didn't care. If the biblical traditions were syncretic rather than ethnic, history would tell us a profoundly different story.

Otherwise, the gods existed 'time out of mind.'
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Neoplato »

Clemsy Wrote:
So Neo, I do take exception to your comment. The vast majority of teachers I know go to great lengths to teach young people how to think... but nature and nurture present us with various potentials the moment they walk in the door.
Didn't mean any offense, just a generalized comment. Thanks for posting Bloom's Taxonomy of learning, I haven't seen this before but it makes absolute sense.

From my experience, in the bean counting world, the higher up the scale you go the more successful you become. To me it seems the majority of the population gets stuck at the comprehension level. I've come across many people who understand a great deal, but they just can't get to the application stage.

I'm wondering if in the Alalysis phase, meta-cognition kicks in. Mmmmm...

I've tried to teach "analysis" in the past, but from my experience, it's either you get it or you don't.

To me, this depiction represents a heirarchy of critical thinking and reasoning.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Locked