Lecture II.1.1 - The Function of Mythology
Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
Lecture II.1.1 - The Function of Mythology
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 4054
- Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: Odenwald
- Contact:
In my judgement, a mandala with a human concern in its center can’t work as a mythic symbol. Humanism can't replace mysticism. In general, people won’t experience the eternal in everyday’s life, unless they have received a spiritual training.TRACK 15: The “God Idea” Today (excerpt)
With respect to the individual and the god idea, Jung has noticed in the symbols coming from the dreams of his patients that, and he uses this line, I think many of you know the symbolism of the mandala, the cosmic circle as a psychological device. Where in the old traditional mandalas there would be the symbol of a god, there tends to turn up in his patients' mandalas the human symbol. Not a god, but humanity as the, the prime centre of concern. Tillich coined the wonderful term "God is your ultimate concern".
What the individual can find in himself through watching his life, through thinking about his life, and through other symptoms, what he can find in himself to be actually his ultimate concern, that is his god. If it is your child, and I dare say for many the child is the ultimate concern, that child is your, what the Indians would call Ishta Devata, your chosen deity. It is the vehicle of your relationship to the divine principle. Your relationship to that little creature is your relationship to god, to your actual god. The theoretical God of the church is not operating in you.
So I’m wondering about Campbell’s depiction of the guru as a relict, that is of no use for the people of today.
From my experience with Buddhist teachers, it’s not a contradiction at all, to have a spiritual teacher as a role model, and to live your own life as an individual. This should be true also for teachers in a Christian or any other mystical tradition.TRACK 13: An Anecdote about Gurus (excerpt)
Now, let me tell you a little anecdote about, gurus. The guru would be the communicator of the values of the culture. The student was to accept what the guru said without criticism. The principal virtue of the student in India is Sraddha, which means perfect faith in the guru, who must be, as it were, a perfect carrier of a light that shines through. He is, as it were, a glass without any imperfections so the light comes beautifully through. Now this is the story of a student who came late one day to the regular sessions, the whole day to be spent with the guru, and the guru roughly says to him, "You're late, where you been?"
"Well, I live the other side of the river, as you know the river is in flood today and I couldn't ford the stream any more, and there was no boat, so I'm late."
"Well," said the guru, "did the river go down? Did a boat come?"
"No."
"Well, how did you get here?"
"Well, I thought my guru is my god, my guru is the vehicle of eternal light, he has erased himself and the light comes pouring through him. I'll simply meditate on my guru, identify with my guru, and walk across the stream. So what did I do? I said guru, guru, guru, and here I am."
Well, of course this touched the guru deeply and it was something that was the kind of thing he had, would have hoped for, you might say. But, and then when the student went it continued to bug him, and he thought, "I've gotta try this."
So he goes to the river, and of course what he says is, "I, I, I," and of course what happened was he drowned. Now, the reason he was a guru was that he wasn't there. The spirit can walk over the water, and any being that can walk over the water is a being who is not of gross object as, as most of us are. Now that guru had communicated to his student the pure light, and he had received it from his guru, who had received it from his guru, who had received it from his guru, and this goes on back, back, back.
That's not what we want. That's not what we ask for. That's not what we train for. We train a person to develop his imperfections, his peculiar nuances of personality and talents. That thing which was never in the world before is what we want people to become, and this brings about this troubled, certainly greatly disturbed but greatly productive, world, in contrast with which the old worlds just seem to be petrifactions.
A guru or spiritual teacher who deserves that name, will help you to experience the eternal in your individual life, rather than just producing clones. So, in my opinion, Campbell’s dichotomy between having a guru and living a proper life as a modern individual is quite artificial.
The problem of modern man is that he doesn’t recognize his conditionings. We believe that we are free because we have been successful in getting rid of traditional teachers and the traditional mythology. At the same time, we are not aware of our dependency on money, technique, social life and mass media. We are not free at all.
The great challenge and opportunity of today is not to refuse the traditional mystical training, but to integrate it into our individual life. The proper guru is the one who helps you discover your ultimate concerns beyond money, job, children. You won’t be able to paint your own new mandala, if you haven’t studied the old one.
Anybody here who had experiences with gurus? Any other interpretations of Campbell's depiciton of gurus and the little parable about the unfortunate guru?
Works of art are indeed always products of having been in danger, of having gone to the very end in an experience, to where man can go no further. -- Rainer Maria Rilke
Now when Joe talks about the “unconscious nature”, I’m assuming there is really no “scientific proof” that this “nature” exists in humans. I do believe that there is scientific proof about animal instincts, but someone please correct me if I’m wrong.From my point of view, the imagery of myth is the imagery through which our own nature— our unconscious nature—communicates with our consciousness; and they have in the past—when the symbols have been received simply and naively, without criticism—operated to keep the conscious programs and life in touch with the unconscious motivations. But when these symbols are removed—as they have been for us—there takes place a disconnection. We hear all over the place these days of alienation, and in terms of the concerns of my science and thinking, one can interpret this alienation as the consequence of the loss of those vehicles, or instruments of communication, by which we would have kept our consciousness in touch with our own group nature—and then we seek the nature in other ways: going back into the country; or becoming, as it were, primitives; or, one way or another, leaving the world of our civilization to go back and find roots—as though those roots are outside. The roots are really inside, and they can be found by way of these… of a restoration, a reactivation, of the real communication which these symbols originally rendered.
The notion that our unconscious nature can be seen in myths, symbols, and artwork by comparing religions and cultures, seems to me the same idea that humans have a “collective” nature. And by removing our communication with the “collective” we fall into a state much like decay.
So I would say that to have a healthy psyche, some acknowledgement of this aspect of being should be present in our lives. However, I am under the impression that the scientific community would say otherwise and insist we are nothing but “brain”; take your happy pills and go to work.
Now to me, this concept of the “unconscious nature of man” sounds “spiritual” to me; representing the Oneness of life manifesting itself within our very existence. Or am I missing the point here?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Sounds good to me, except this
Is it the collective? Or our own personal conscious and unconscious worlds that need to communicate? I am not sure if there is a difference though but Campbell says this.And by removing our communication with the “collective” we fall into a state much like decay.
So the collective comes afterward, I guess?From my point of view, the imagery of myth is the imagery through which our own nature— our unconscious nature—communicates with our consciousness;
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Try thinking in terms of both "collective unconsciousness" and "collective consciousness." The two interact with and affect each other. (What is "personal" derives from both.)Andreas wrote:So the collective comes afterward, I guess?
Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Good catch Andreas. Joe didn’t use the word “collective” in the above quote; I projected it there based on other sources of reference. However, it does appear to me that Joe is alluding to it, otherwise why would the same symbols, images and the basic message of “Thou art That” appear across cultures if there wasn’t a basic unconscious human psyche collective to the human race?So the collective comes afterward, I guess?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Neo you are right and it is probably my mistake for not explaining it properly but I am not disputing the validity or the reality of the collective unconscious, I just needed some clarification on the order they are experienced or which one is Campbell talking about at that particular quote you posted.However, it does appear to me that Joe is alluding to it, otherwise why would the same symbols, images and the basic message of “Thou art That” appear across cultures if there wasn’t a basic unconscious human psyche collective to the human race?
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
In my own experience, understanding the difference between an organism in comparisonCindy B. wrote:Try thinking in terms of both "collective unconsciousness" and "collective consciousness." The two interact with and affect each other. (What is "personal" derives from both.)Andreas wrote:So the collective comes afterward, I guess?
Cindy
to our ordinary definition of organisation took a long time!
Cindy B. wrote:Try thinking in terms of both "collective unconsciousness" and "collective consciousness." The two interact with and affect each other. (What is "personal" derives from both.)Andreas wrote:So the collective comes afterward, I guess?
Cindy
Andreas, can you please expand your question a little more?
Is it something like where ends personal unconscious and where starts the collective content?
I’m reading again these posts while working on some chapters of Carl Jung’s Aion referring to myths
and fairytales, their relation to unconscious processes and the transconscious
factor called the instinct.
And Cindy, do you mean that both the conscious and unconscious parts of our thinking have collective
properties? I’m asking this because your point seems significant in matters of differentiation of consciousness.
Can you please tell what do you exactly mean when saying ‘what is personal derives from both’ ?
Do you mean that we can assume that they’re interweaved?
To clarify for others who may pass by, what follows is from the Jungian perspective.Ercan2121 wrote:And Cindy, do you mean that both the conscious and unconscious parts of our thinking have collectiveproperties? I’m asking this because your point seems significant in matters of differentiation of consciousness.Cindy B. wrote:Try thinking in terms of both "collective unconsciousness" and "collective consciousness." The two interact with and affect each other. (What is "personal" derives from both.)Andreas wrote:So the collective comes afterward, I guess?
Can you please tell what do you exactly mean when saying ‘what is personal derives from both’ ?
Do you mean that we can assume that they’re interweaved?
So, Ercan, consciousness can be conceived as both collective (social, communal) and personal (psychological). Collective consciousness refers to those shared aspects of culture, society, subgroups, etc. that influence the individual and within which he/she lives. This notion can also encompass the consciousness of all humankind. Personal consciousness is particular to an individual given his/her unique life experiences (inner and outer), and the psychic element by which one structures and identifies him/herself at this level is the ego (aka Campbell’s hero). We are naturally social beings first and foremost, and during the course of our lives, we psychologically differentiate ourselves more and more from the collective and become distinct psychosocial individuals, i.e., we individuate.
Unconsciousness, too, can be conceived as both collective and personal, and is at the root of all psychic functioning, including consciousness. The collective unconscious is the inherited and instinctual level of psychic functioning that is shared among all people. We’re at the level of biology here and those archetypal factors that make us the universal community of humankind. (Archetypes are specific instincts that effect and affect psychosocial behavior and perception; that is, all archetypes are instincts, but all instincts are not archetypes.) Within these instinctual bounds is vast potential for variation and creative expression, whether we’re referring to the collective psyche of all human beings, a given peoples or other group, or an individual. The personal unconscious, again, is particular to an individual given his/her unique life experiences, those experiences arising both from consciousness and from the collective unconscious as perceived at this level in the form of archetypal images and complexes. Unlike the contents of the collective unconscious—archetypes--that can never reach conscious awareness since they’re instinctual factors (Only their effects can be known.), the contents of the personal unconscious are easily accessible to conscious ego functioning and awareness. Campbell’s hero’s journey, for example, begins with a descent into the personal unconscious, i.e., “away from the community (society and collective consciousness).”
This helps, I hope.
Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Never mind, Andreas.
I only thought that maybe you are seeking an equivalent of Freudian classification
here –like Id, ego and superego ?
It was also interesting to find Cindy use the term ‘collective consciousness’ maybe for
the first time in her posts. That’s all.
Otherwise, Carl Jung himself often reminds us that consciousness is a very recent
acquisition of nature and our present knowledge of psyche is very far
from being total.
Why seeking exactitude in our definitions then -with a ‘rational’ mind?
I only thought that maybe you are seeking an equivalent of Freudian classification
here –like Id, ego and superego ?
It was also interesting to find Cindy use the term ‘collective consciousness’ maybe for
the first time in her posts. That’s all.
Otherwise, Carl Jung himself often reminds us that consciousness is a very recent
acquisition of nature and our present knowledge of psyche is very far
from being total.
Why seeking exactitude in our definitions then -with a ‘rational’ mind?
In some ways, one of the functiions of Myth is promote the "collective consciousnes". Especially when promoting the stability of one's society.It was also interesting to find Cindy use the term ‘collective consciousness’ maybe for the first time in her posts. That’s all.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Very true. Only, this term sounds somewhat nonstandard forNeoplato wrote:In some ways, one of the functiions of Myth is promote the "collective consciousnes". Especially when promoting the stability of one's society.It was also interesting to find Cindy use the term ‘collective consciousness’ maybe for the first time in her posts. That’s all.
an élite poster like Cindy B