Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 In a message dated 7/22/2003 2:58:53 PM Central Daylight Time, eve@... writes: > This is the current draft of the first of the two essays I'm working on > for Pacifica. I thought some of you might enjoy it. > > This is fascinating, Eve. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing. Namasté Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open. - Sir Dewar A closed mind is a good thing to lose. " Minds are like parachutes; most people use them only as a last resort. " ~Ben Ostrowsky Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. ~mrantho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Why quotation marks? Why should we care about quotation marks? What do they have to do with life? Why is it, that when you put text like this into e-mail format, that some, but not all, the quotation marks disappear, thereby making it hard to tell, particularly in a piece like this, whose words are whose? Eve > This is the current draft of the first of the two essays I'm working on > for Pacifica. I thought some of you might enjoy it. > > Eve > > Jung and on the Myth > with Bill Moyers > > Moyers: “Why myths? Why should we care about myths? What do they > have to do with life ?” (Flowers 3). > > Jung: “Myths re-establish[...] the connection between conscious and > unconscious.” “[They] give expression to unconscious processes, and > their retelling causes these processes to come alive again and be > recollected.” (Segal 88). > > : Yes, “myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of > [...] human life” (Flowers 5). > > Jung: Joe, I must tell you that I cannot go quite that far. It is > only the cautionary words you use: “clues” and “potentialities,” that > make your statement acceptable from an empirical standpoint. The > archetypal material that comes into our waking consciousness through > mythology is real. It opens to that mystical beyond of which you speak > so eloquently, but the image and the way in which it affects the psyche > are real. “There are present in every individual, besides his personal > memories, the great’ primordial’ images [...] the inherited > possibilities of human imagination as it was from time immemorial. The > fact of this inheritance explains the truly amazing phenomenon that > certain motifs from myths and legends repeat themselves the world over > in identical forms” (Segal 62). “From a scientific, causal standpoint > the primordial image can be conceived as a mnemic deposit, an imprint > [...] which has arisen through the condensation of countless processes > of a similar kind. In this respect it is a precipitate, and therefore a > typical basic form, of certain ever-recurring psychic experiences. As a > mythological motif, it is continually effective and recurrent > expression that reawakens certain psychic experiences or else > formulates them in an appropriate way” (69). > > Moyers: So, Carl, you’re saying Joe’s use of the word “spiritual” is > going a bit far for you? You want to keep the definition of mythology > grounded in the empirical? > > Jung: From my own experience, I can neither affirm nor deny what Joe > is calling ‘spiritual potential’. One can only speak of what one has > experienced. The ‘spiritual potentialities’ are just that, > potentialities. > > : Now, Carl, you know we’re more in agreement than not. Myths > are the world’s dreams (Flowers 15). “Myths are metaphorical of > spiritual potentiality in the human being and in the universe” . Now > surely you agree with that. “[Myths] are the same powers that animate > our life animate the life of the world” (22). > > Moyers: Wow, these are big ideas you guys are talking about, > primordial ideas. Do I understand right from what you’re saying that > these major concepts, these gods, travel along the channels myths > provide? The story, or the image, opens up the realms of the gods, so > to speak. Maybe one of you could share a myth, a story, that’ll help us > understand what you’re getting at. > > Jung: I defer to Joe here. You are the storyteller, Joe. Rejoin us > with a tale. > > : Well, how about a native American story, then, the Iroquois > Creation Story? > > Moyers: Sounds good to me. Maybe Carl could begin by telling us a > little about how he sees people like the native Americans functioning > on a psychological basis first. How did stories like this come to the > people? > > Jung: Certainly. The people who first told us the story Joe will be > so kind as to relate for us, the primitives of ages past and also those > of the present, do not distinguish between psyche waking and psyche > dreaming. For them, the world of archetypes and personal dream figures > is as real, or more real, than the physical world. > Thus, “[t]he primitive mentality does not invent myths, it experiences > them. Myths are original revelations of the preconscious psyche, > involuntary statements about unconconscious psychic happenings, and > anything but allegories of physical processes. Such allegories would be > an idle amusement for an unscientific intellect. Myths, on the > contrary, have a vital meaning. Not only do they represent, they are > the psychic life of the primitive tribe, which immediately falls to > pieces and decays when it loses its mythological heritage, like the man > who has lost his soul. A tribe’s religion is its living religion, whose > loss is always and everywhere, even among the civilized, a moral > catastrophe” (Dundes 248). > > Moyers: So you’re saying that this story is one that the native > Americans who first told it actually experienced? > > Jung: “Experienced” in the sense that we might experience a dream. But > to the primitive mentality, this dream is the whole of reality. The > modern western mind, on the other hand, is terribly one-sided, > favoring a waking, focused consciousness over a diffused mode of > consciousness. We see this as the only reality. Centered upon the ego, > the focused psyche sees outward through a lens of its own making. Such > a lens makes clear the distinction between waking and dream states. > Therefore, the unconscious and the preconscious states have no > validity. > > Moyers: Let’s hear the story now, Joe, and continue to discuss how > this would work as we go. > > : Yes, well, it begins like this. Long, long ago, (there you > see, already the story is taking us out of our day-to-day material > existence,) when the world was not as we know it today, (there you’re > seeing that shift again into another kind of consciousness,) there was > only the sky world and the water world... > > Jung: Here we are in the world of archetypes. Nothing is solid. The > statement Joe made that there is only sky and water indicates a > “reduced intensity of consciousness and the absence of concentration > and attention, [which] correspond pretty exactly to the primitive > state of consciousness in which, we must suppose, myths were originally > formed” (Dundes 248). > > : Yes, exactly. And each of these, the sky and the water, > stretched as far as the eye could see to the east and to the west and > the north and the south. (So now we know that this world exists outside > of conventional time and conventional space.) Now, at the center of > the sky world was a great tree. > > Jung: Another archetypal image. > > : The same tree that turns up in creation myths from around > the world. > > Jung: The same and yet simultaneously unique to each culture in which > it appears. > > Moyers: Now wait a minute. I don’t see how an image can be both the > same and different. What are you getting at here? > > : Well, the particulars of the image belong to the culture in > whose story it appears... > Jung: But the archetype itself belongs to the collective unconscious. > It clothes itself in imagery that make sense to the culture. > > : At a particular place and time. > > Moyers: But Joe, I’ve seen in writings about you that your critics > pretty consistently call you a universalist. What I hear the two of you > saying now doesn’t sound like you’re telling us that myths are alike > around the world. > > : I don’t think I am a universalist, Bill. I’m “a > comparativist in a world of difference,” as argued pretty > convincingly, I thought, in a lecture he gave to the Parliament of > World Religions in 1994. > But, let’s move ahead in the story. The ideas we’re discussing are > right in these stories. Now this particular tree, the tree at the > center of the sky world, bears all the fruit that we have in the world > today. And there’s a chief who lives up there whose wife is pregnant. > She tries to eat from the tree (that’s a story in itself) but she ends > up falling through a hole at its roots, down, down, down toward the > water world below. In her hand she grasps broken bits of the roots of > the great tree. > > Jung: These characters are the gods of old. Whether they come from > above or below, they make their way from the unconscious into the > conscious mind. > > : The water animals work together to creating a place for her > to land. (Here’s a part of the story that’s colored by the place and > times of the story’s origin. The idea of cooperation is very important > among native Americans, so the idea works its way into the early part > of story.) Finally, the humblest of all the animals, the muskrat, > brings up a clod of earth from under the sea places it carefully on the > turtle’s back. Swans help the sky woman land. > > Jung: The role animals play in myth is always worth a closer look. I > propose we focus our next interview on it. Another image that caught my > attention is that the solid earth was brought to the surface from below > the water. Here, the very stuff of the physical world is formed in the > watery depths wherein the psyche dwells. > > Moyers: Yes, I can see that. So the sky woman was pregnant, and... > > : Yes, she gives birth to a daughter, and the two of them walk > around the new earth in circles to make it as big and lush as it is > today. And there you have the story of creation: the earth, created out > of a coming together of the energy of the sky and and some matter from > beneath the water world. > > Moyers: Now, let me think a moment. If the matter comes from below the > water world, does the spirit of the sky woman really come from? Who are > the sky people? > > Jung: Thus we come full circle to the differences that we began with! > I personally do not see much difference between us on a conceptual > basis. Who are the sky people? They are the archetypes of the > unconscious. Joe and I will both tell you the gods come from beyond and > are ultimately incomprehensible for the essentially the same reasons. > It is only the focus of our studies and our our language that is > different. Joe’s academic field, comparative mythology, allows his > words to fly higher than mine, so to speak. I remain as scientific and > rational as such autonomous material as archetypes will allow. I > understand that I am speaking to an educated, scientific and rational > audience, and , after all, I am first and foremost a western doctor, a > psychiatrist. > > : Carl, I have to admit that in my field, one worries less > about being labeled a mystic. I feel free to speak directly to the > spiritual. It’s a function of the interaction between the universals > and the particulars again. I speak from my time and place and Carl > speaks from his. But the truths that speak through our stories from the > deeper and higher realms are eternal truths. > “The material of myth is the material of life, the material of the > body, and the material of our environment, and a living, vital > mythology deals with these in terms that are appropriate to the nature > of knowledge of the time” (Transformation 1). > > Moyers: “And it begins here. > > : It begins here” (Flowers 183). > > > > Works Cited > > , ph. The Power of Myth. With Bill Moyers. Ed. Betty Sue > Flowers. New York: > Doubleday, 1988. > > ---. The Flight of the Wild Gander. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1969. > > ---. Transformations of Myth through Through Time. New York: Harper & > Row, 1990. > > Dundes, Alan, ed. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. > Berkeley: U of C P, 1984. > 244-270. > > , . " Comparativism in a World of Difference: The Legacy of > ph to the > Postmodern History of Religions, " The ph Foundation > Newsletter, 2 > (Winter 1994): 6-12. 15 July 2003. > <http://web.syr.edu/~dlmiller/CompDiff.htm>. > > Segal, A., ed. Jung on Mythology. Encountering Jung series. > Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, > 1998. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.