Lecture II.1.2 - Mythology East and West

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.

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

Neoplato wrote:
One question though. Why we cannot have an enemy (or fight for something) if we find our still point?-Andreas.
I've contemplated this and I believe this is what the samurai are supposed to acheive. Or that Arjuna battle where Krishna convinced him to slaughter everyone.

I obviously don't subscribe to these interpretations of "oneness". I get images of Hitler.
No, I don't think Kurukshetra battle was like the battles of modern world; instead, that was the scene of a fastidious ritual that warriors fought one to one and Arjun's main question is about harming/not harming another being. Namely, here again, it all depends on how one reads a myth. Are we entitled to kill, in the first place? To be centred doesn't mean that wordly drama ends altogether and we suddenly start to live in terms of Paradesha.
What a noble soul has to do when faced with injustice? How he has to act when he can't evade the evil? Is it reasonable to sit down and meditate in the middle of a battlefield ? To remain a nice person and being killed or reacting and fighting? What we do next after we learned to be centred? Because, Kurukshetra's also Dharmakshetra. Arjuna's sacrificing his nice guy image and becomes a warrior, this is probably the next stage of his journey; facing the wordly drama once again -with his newly acquired wisdom.

Einherjar
Associate
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:21 pm
Location: Stavanger - Norway

Post by Einherjar »

Andreas wrote:
From this seat, it matters not at all whether one wants to die for the glory of a nation, for Valhalla, or for any other unidentifiable entity, it is all chasing smoke....shadows and dust. - JJ
It makes it much more easier though to kill for Valhalla or for the glory of a nation than actually going there to kill and die for oil. ;)
This was close to my thoughts also. Is it by pure chance that when Norway invade and occupy another nation 1000 years after last time, the same "warrior" culture emerge as a "comforting" or "foundation" to handle and express the battlefield experience?

As I said, most understand and acknowledge that oil is the subject. But this motivation is irrelevant for the soldiers, as all they get is the "thrill and adventure" of battle. Very few think they are the forces of good in the world as other so-called christian nations do.
jonsjourney wrote: From this seat, it matters not at all whether one wants to die for the glory of a nation, for Valhalla, or for any other unidentifiable entity, it is all chasing smoke....shadows and dust.
I think you mistake the philosophical aspect behind it. No one wants to die for glory or Valhalla, nor for any other unidentifiable entity as they do not exist as supernatural beings in Norse mythology. Odin as one example is the aspect of elements reflecting reality. The myth is that Odins bloodline is foundation of all "norsemenn", represented by the Odal rune. To this day the Odals law exist for securing land ownership from father to son, a law implemented in writing by king Magnus Lagabøter around 1200-something.

There is a written record of one of the first missionaries to reach Birka in Sweden around the time of cultural war between the Norse culture and the Holy Roman Empire. When he arrived he was met by a group of people laughing and mocking him for what he represented. It is written that one said to the missionary; " Odin is here, where is this god of yours". When reflecting themselves as Odin as they are the only physical thing present, the difference between saying Jesus is with me as more normal than to proclaim Jesus as aspect of oneself become clear.

My point was more about cultural expression of belief in "Just war" vs war. While ethical belief justify for some, ethical issue as justification for war have no relevance for others. In other words, war is not good vs evil. War is what it is, war.

No one fights to get to Valhalla, and Thor & Co from the comics reflect norse mythology poorly if that is main foundation for related knowledge. The fight is because of the thrill of the fight itself. The adventure and moment of truly being aware of life, as you balance on the borderline between life and death. A battle with the dragon to use a relevant comparison.


Qoutes from soldiers in reference to what M_Weyers earlier mentioned as the World navel, or even more understandable as "still point"

"Seeing the "red mist" in your optics is an incredible feeling"

"You become so high on adrenaline before you draw the trigger. You want to shoot all the time when you have "verified weapon" and know that the enemy is a legitimate target. When you finally get to fire, you become blood-focused. We do anything to hit, to kill. Sometimes you're lucky, I hit a Taliban warrior in the neck from 2770 meter on february 2 this year - Man, there was cheering!"

The company commander major Kristian Simonsen expressed after being asked about ethical concerns related to killing people.

"I have utilized the troops with the intention of killing, and we have been successful. I don't reflect on having killed someone. They have chosen to enter the battlefield with the intention to kill us, that makes us equally guilty of the outcome. We are the two parties of a war".

Buddhism and Norse mythology served and serve as implementations of ritual and expression of warrior cultures since ancient times. War as mean to experience and understand the "here and now", or the "still point" as mentioned.

This is no reflection about my views on different nations actions or ongoing war. I am not critical towards any, as I understand reality for being true. True in the form that what is can not be rejected or denied. Every participant are motivated by something equally human, but different in subjective perception caused by individual experience of reality. USA is neither the "big satan", nor are they the forces of good. The same goes for Norwegians, Afghans and so on. The experience of reality can never be other than human for humans.
Eyvitar firna - er maðr annan skal, þess er um margan gengr guma; heimska ór horskum - gerir hölða sonu - sá inn máttki munr.

Never place blame on man, because it happens to all. No matter how wise, a fool he becomes, when love steals his powers.

Hávamál

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Is it by pure chance that when Norway invade and occupy another nation 1000 years after last time, the same "warrior" culture emerge as a "comforting" or "foundation" to handle and express the battlefield experience? - Einherjar
I do not believe in coincidence. I hope this answer your question. :P
As I said, most understand and acknowledge that oil is the subject. But this motivation is irrelevant for the soldiers, as all they get is the "thrill and adventure" of battle. - Einherjar
My point was more about cultural expression of belief in "Just war" vs war. While ethical belief justify for some, ethical issue as justification for war have no relevance for others. In other words, war is not good vs evil. War is what it is, war.

The fight is because of the thrill of the fight itself. The adventure and moment of truly being aware of life, as you balance on the borderline between life and death. A battle with the dragon to use a relevant comparison. - Einherjar
You might also wanna check the movie The Hurt Locker and Chris Hedges who wrote the book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning , if you havent done that already. It seems to go nicely with what you say.

"The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug."
USA is neither the "big satan", nor are they the forces of good. The same goes for Norwegians, Afghans and so on.
Well USA just happens to be this greater empire. USA is definetely not the forces of good but as long as it believes that it is, then it is definetely the "big satan".

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

Post by jonsjourney »

I will just say this and then move out of the current conversational trajectory because it may be straying a bit off-topic....

War, in my view, is not fought over ideology. It may have been the case at one time, but it is about resource procurement and protection today (and maybe it always has been). If we fought over ideology, we (the USA) would be fighting far different wars in much different locations (eg. genocide in areas of Africa; human rights violations in China, etc). Our ideologies are made to suit our desired ends, which is why we ended up in Iraq.

War being what it is ("is what it is") essentially means that there is no such thing as a "just war". War for the sake of warfare needs no philosophical justification. "Just war" theory is exactly what it's name implies....a justification to wage war. Justifications do not exist as such, they are our own constructs. We make and break the rules depending on the nature of the game at hand...in my view.

Finally, those who do the most dying in warfare are not the ones doing the fighting. It is the civilians that are the greatest casualties in contemporary warfare.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/tollof ... rmain.html

We protect and shield the soldier with technology while recklessly killing those who are just trying to eek out some kind of existence. This idea of the Arjuna image of warfare is a residual mythological image that no longer serves reality any more than the "facts" of the Bible serve today's reality. At best, it is misdirection away from the facts on the ground. There is no justification, morally or otherwise, in that fact.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

edited and deleted by Ercan

Locked