Norland, Stephen, Everyone,

This Mythblast is so rich; as I read it I felt I was taken from the views of the spiritual and psychic strata from heaven to hell: It begins with the monk in mango forest and the brahmin then works its way down to the untouchables, the outcasts who shovel feces and dead animals or anything diseased. The photo of the monk in the mango garden is like paradise, and the orange glow in the photo accentuates the idea of life all aglow; this seems to me to represent the color of a living myth: as Nolan states, it is alive, alive in the psyche, and there is an immediacy of experience with the living myth that feels (imo) less remote. This is not to say I do not feel a strong affinity with the myths of Pompeii, as the dead myths can still provoke and elicit a strong response through the symbols. The symbols of the dead myths are however perhaps less known–to know is to own in the now; Jung stated that a symbol was the unknown (meaning is open for interpretation) whereas a sign is the known (we already know what the symbol signifies within a particular instance or experience). For instance, since I was raised in the Catholic church I knew (was conditioned through repetition) what to do when I walked in the church and dipped my fingers in holy water. The bowl of water that was blessed by the priest was there waiting for parishioners to bless themselves with. Some made the sign of the cross with it, but old traditional was to make the triple sign of the cross in the bridge between the eyes (much like blessing one’s third eye if not just plain vision!), then the lips (to bless the speech), and then over the heart (to bless one’s feelings of the heart). This felt to me like a living myth back then because I did it in the “now” and I “owned” it, carrying through with the behavior of the ritual. I am thinking of what in those days to me felt like a dead myth and what I come up with is this: The Latin Mass. I often attended Latin Mass with my grandmother Mary who knew the whole thing by heart. To her it was a living myth since she knew what it all meant, whereas to me it was a dead myth because I did not understand a word of it but only knew it was from the more distant past in Rome. However, recollecting now, I can add that in a slight sense it it became to some degree a living myth to me because I saw it alive through my grandmother’s eyes and heart.

One thing that can make some dead myths come alive then is ritual, and Stephen has remarked on this at some point before in the discussions. When we actually participate in the mythic/spiritual rites, we bring it to life as a living myth. How perfectly precise the rite today matches the rites of the initiates or priests or spiritual practitioners in the old or ancient world may not always be the most necessary thing, because if we still get the meaning of the symbols through our psychic impressions of the symbols or acts, then we are still receiving the heart of the myth–its art of hearing with the inner ear the voice of the daimon or our inner selves, when it speaks to our souls and our hearts feel it echo in its chambers–the ‘tabernackle of the heart’, as a pagan/earth spiritualist and Qabalist friend of mine used to say. If we come close to using the symbols in the same (similar) way, we can evoke the same meaning–interpreted through our own psyches much as what the ancients may have been feeling. Even those who attempt the old rites of some cultures with the intent of merely “enacting” the rites (such as Celtic rites, Egyptian rites, or any of the old pagan cultural rites) end up feeling some extent of participation mystique and as if they have actually entered the mysteries. Does it depend on belief? Maybe for some to some extent, but it also seems as if nonetheless the symbols speak to the psyche and thus frequently to the soul (for the sake of those who separate them here–I would have to quote more of James Hillman for that probably).

When we evoke those same feelings that the ancients felt in the past rites or symbols, this then could be part of what the archetypal psyche is. Our human psyches have the tendency to “think” in archetypal fashion–our psyches are indeed part of the archetypal pool. The archetypal psyche, as a poetry professor Richard Messer of Bowling Green State University who had also studied at the Jungian Swiss Institute once said to a class I was in, we have all seen the same sun, the same moon, the same forms of thing such as a tree, for centuries, and these images span the ages; he said that strong poetry or successful poetry utilizes the universal appeal of the archetypes. While universal, the images/symbols still speak to us personally through our personal associations through our personal experience, thus we have both the collective psyche and the individual psyche–but there are other considerations too to the collective psyche such as cultures and societies or religious groups, for that matter. Rituals are one way of resurrecting the (a) dead myth.

This brings me to the idea of this caste system. I am not looking up quotes from Jung here, but just speaking from my own individual experience which I guess is also universal experience for most of us (since we are not monks or brahmins per say!): I do suppose we all feel like brahmins at times and like the undesirables sometimes. Some of us might be actual orphans or some of us might be orphaned in another respect. We might feel like a brahmin in one situation and like an untouchable in another situation. We all have our domains, perhaps of where we feel most high and where we feel most low. We all have things we would like to hide or keep hidden. We would like to hide some of the complexes in our Shadows (according to Jung) due to things about ourselves we would like to keep hidden. Maybe when they come out sometimes and someone sees those things, we feel like an untouchable, feeling like the ‘other’ person will not accept us/like us/think we are okay (remember the 60s I’m Okay/You’re Okay? 🙂  If we cannot change the situation of what it is about us that makes us feel at our lowest lows, perhaps we can change our reactions to it to work through the complex. So the personal alchemy of change could make for the process of ripening in the individual psyche and affect the collective psyche in that process just as the collective affects the individual psyche. All the mangoes could rot on the trees if not picked in the right time. As far as the mythic mangoes or the mythic orange mythologems of mangoes, the symbols are always ripe for the picking–and sometimes they do pick us! (Maybe we were born into a particular culture that believes this or that, or follows a certain religion, etc.) Whether we “eat” our god when we take Communion at the Catholic Mass, or whether we eat Cakes and Wine at a pagan/earth centered spirituality ceremony/circle, there is something there to imbibe insofar as the archetypal symbols. Both these symbols mean that the god or the goddess or the spirit of the earth and the cosmos nurture us.

Then there are those myths that are best left dead and not enacted or resurrected (literally) anymore–that is another story that is the story of Abraham thinking God told him to sacrifice his son. I have a cousin who is a Christian minister who told me that that story marks the time when human sacrifice was no longer to be done and that the sacrifice/crucifixion of Christ was the reminder of that and no more animal sacrifices either. Repetitive enactment of old rites like Easter as just the acknowledgement is the part that is kept alive of the Crucifixion, though, just as pagans will celebrate the same rites going around the Wheel of the Year from Spring Equinox through Winter Solstice. Traditionalists will repeat the old rites/same rites year by year, and others will make it fresh and new each year by changing or adding something, but both traditionalists and non-traditionalists will probably invoke the 4 directions prior to the rite and draw the Circle–just like Catholics will use the holy water and genuflect before Christ on the cross.

The symbols have meaning that gets carried on down through the generations and for the most part all is needed is the symbol to be affected, but to understand it consciously is why we study and discuss the myths. I think those who are not interested in discussing mythology are those that do not feel the desire to understand it the way some of us do. Some of us want to know it, to know the mysteries–for whatever reason. Some people ask why study these old “dead” myths–perhaps they just don’t have the same desire to understand that some of us do. I would love to hear people describe why it is they feel pulled or called to know the old myths, whether a feeling or what you think about it.

Norland; another great offering you have brought and indeed one of Stephen’s insights for me suggests the: “Archetype of the Hero”.

It’s interesting this topic makes it’s appearance today since the US is in mourning recognizing one of the icons of the Civil Rights movement; “John Lewis”; who like Dr. Martin Luther King has come to symbolize not only the role the hero plays within a particular society; but also the character behind the figure. One might ask: “What is identifiable that evokes the best in human nature whether it be a god or a human being? What is this quality in the Hero; whether mortal or god that makes this timeless symbol so important? And why is this quality also universal? What does it mean to be heroic?”

In in the opening lines of Phil Cousineau’s introduction of the: The Hero’s Journey, (on page, XI); he wrote:

 

Joseph Campbell’s long odyssey through the seas of ancient mythology was as much a spiritual quest as it was a scholarly one. Through his prodigious readings, writings, and travels, as well as his crossroads meetings with many of the country’s most influential men and women. he discovered remarkable parallels in our world’s mythological heritage and reinforcement for the deep conviction he had held since he was a young student that there is a fundamental unity at the heart of nature.

‘Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names.’ he often quoted the Vedas. To synthesize the constant truths of history became the burning point of his life; to bridge the abyss between science and religion, mind and body, East and West, with the timeless linkage of myths became his tasks of tasks.

‘My hope’, he wrote in his preface to The Hero with a Thousand Faces, ‘is that a comparative elucidation may contribute to the perhaps not-quite-desperate cause of those forces that are working in the present world for unification, not in the name of some ecclesiastical or political empire, but in the name of human mutual understanding.’ ”

__________________________________________________________________

So what would the main feature be of the world’s great myths and heros that would clarify their distinction throughout history; and my answer would be: “Transcendent”. “Transparent to transcendence” is a phrase Joseph would often use to describe a message of metaphysical or spiritual quality that could penetrate through the material manifestations that often blocked a deeper interconnecting understanding between different realms of human experience. And these barriers most often were the major difficulties that stood in the way of human understanding. To be clearer my approach has to do with different: (east vs west) outlooks as well as historical barriers of: race, class, prestige, monetary advantage, spiritual disagreement, emotional dislike, or just harmony in general if you will; and these are the kinds of problems the hero most generally faces. There are other hero distinctions of course such as: sacrifice, selflessness, courage, determination; to name but a few; but this one feature I think most properly addresses some of the cross-cultural and historical concerns Norland’s piece and Stephen’s multi-dimensional bridge opens up.

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and contributions—thank you Mary and James, it delights me to see so much fire struck by our mythblasts! I think it is a testimony to our shared passion for mythological studies!

Despite myself, I will have to keep this first reply brief but I hope to the point, especially addressing Stephen’s question about my use of the term “archetypal psyche” and “collective manifestation,” which he rightly brought attention to, for it can be a contentious issue even within the Jungian community. And yet Stephen challenges me to put it in the simplest way possible for those not familiar with archetypal psychology or Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious, which Jung advanced in contradistinction to the “personal unconscious” falsely attributed to Freud. I say falsely attributed because Freud already knew what later feminists would make into a rallying cry for women’s rights, namely, that “the personal is already the political.”

This is my contention with the emphasis on “collective manifestation” when it comes to archetypal data. In line with Jung’s original idea, I want to broaden our view of the psyche as an encompassing reality well beyond the confines of an individual consciousness. Part of the problem with accepting this notion, I think, is the fact that it gently pushes against the ideological fantasy that underpins our belief in rugged individualism. Although it should have been obvious to most jungians, as it was obvious to Jung despite himself, the manifestations of the collective psyche are in spectacular display everyday on the broad stage of history, not necessarily always hidden in the bowls of an individual consciousness.

So the simplest term for the collective manifestations of the archetypal psyche contains the hyphen of a mystical union of opposites: it is mytho-history, which is, of course, a favorite term of mine, derived from my study of the Popol Vuh and Maya mythology. Sometimes contracted into mythistory, as Joseph Mali does in his book titled Mythistory: The Making of Modern Historiography. This is an apt term in this context since it contains both the material and symbolic dimensions of the psyche, in its individual and collective manifestations, as an integrated whole of human co-existence on earth.

Much blessings,

NT

Thanks Stephen for the invite here – and everyone for the awesome responses.

Is it OK to anchor this to NOW? Is it too far of a stretch to relate these “outcasts” to the “essential workers” or COVID-19 survivors?

I don’t want to go too far down that path alone & detract from this excellent topic!

Stephen; this is truly a tremendous response to this topic; full of clarity and most helpful going forward. I have to say I was very confused about what the overlying themes of this topic were; and this post combined with Norland’s very thoughtful and insightful reply; (at least for me); helped to pull many concepts together into a more cohesive whole. (Although I’m still working through much of it.)

Joseph’s themes that many of us are aware of within the general public do not normally address these larger concepts in an accessible way so therefore; just like with the: “collective unconscious” when one uses the term: “collective manifestation” they are like patterns without a bridge to connect them unless one’s understanding of: “Archetypal Psyche” includes the distinction between the singular individual and the wider collective cultural overviews that separate them. Just like the western European psyche is different from the eastern; these cultural divides approach spirituality from two directions; especially concerning the idea of the “Ego”. So my confusion was left without a bridge to the other side which is what this topic addresses. As your post clarifies my starting place with the Hero as “vehicle of the transcendent across time” obviously came up short from what this topic was addressing. And my second part attempted to connect western theological concepts that Joseph had previously addressed within this larger realm also fell somewhat short because I did not fully understand what the overview was laying out as a starting place.

At any rate; I’ll continue in my attempts to better absorb this material while Norland and anyone else takes it from here. Again a masterful post Stephen!

Mary; this was a really nice post and I hope you’ll add more whenever you feel like it. (Lived experience I think is extremely important; and I thought the added ideas you brought added much to this topic.) As for myself I’m regrouping for a bit so maybe there are some others who might have thoughts to add.

Thank you Mr Norland for this refreshing new perspective on the question of living vs fossil myths.

Yes, some of the harshest aspects of a living myth are on display in many ancient societies.
It is the living myths that we breathe and and finally dissolve into that has helped Indian civilisation to remain the only surviving Pre Bronze Age Pagan culture in the world.

Rather than trying to identify the archetypes invested in a myth, I think  we should explore the rise and evolution of the Story and as to why people chose to believe ideological premise and social codes that are sustained by the story.

I read that someone was uncomfortable about the idea of  diminished individuality when dominated by a collective imperative.

You have to understand that the individual is still a newfangled notion in Asia.  The Compelling need for any individual in those days was to lose himself –  alive or dead – to the collective identity. In this case the castes  – that eventually make up a Macro Individual -Manu.

Quote “I want to broaden our view of the psyche as an encompassing reality well beyond the confines of an individual consciousness.“

This is exactly what Western civilization struggles with – and pursues as an afterthought.

Rather, the journey should be traced from the collective to the individual. I had read a Manusmriti translation almost 40 years ago. And in the preface the scholar who I believe was British, confesses that there is a theatre in the fringes of conscious reality, that will elude even the most diligent of students.
It is the story – and it has to connect to and knit together a fraying society at an instinctual realm, A fraying society eaten  away by  detractors of Brahminism, many of whom, were born into it like Buddha and Mahavira. As well as the Nishedhis the people who rejected all forms of political and ideological architecture that underpinned the society.

So it is the story that is paramount

A living myth will transplant the story to any social or geographic environment and strike root into the psyche of a people drawing nourishment as well as giving shade them and their parochial archetypes.

Ramayana ,one of the oldest epic in the world composed by a Shudra (Wayside robber) turned Sage is a great example.

I would really hesitate to Anchor it to Now

If we place a Story in a timeframe it will lose its Eternal nature and therefore meaningfulness . It will remain a Picture, framed and nailed to a wall.

But I concede that such an exercise is necessary for research and didactic purposes. For eg the Caste system and untouchability existed among those who themselves were considered outcasts. These were the first people – the forest and hill tribals of India.

Another feature that indicates an organic evolution of Caste system was that genetic studies indicate that South Asians had a high level of miscegenation at around 4millenium BC and then in a millenium or ao very little gentic variation. Just giving a context to our story.

I keep being assailed by the delight and depth of our conversation—truly worthy of the name of our forum! I only regret not being able to answer all the salient points that have been provoked by my little piece. But I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Stephen’s wonderful condensation of what was brought up by the term “archetypal psyche” and “collective unconscious”—the latter in particular, as Stephen mentioned, being rather out of touch with our present reality. Of course, to put it even stronger, one can say that this critique extends to the whole of Jungian psychology, which strikes most readers outside its sacred circle as right down reactionary or ideologically backwards.

Although I don’t want to open a can of worms or get off topic, we can point to the existence of Jordan Peterson as a prime example of where you might end up if you were to swallow Jungianism whole, that is, without putting Jung himself in the alchemical fires of critical transformation: a staunch defender of Capitalism’s status quo and its grotesque hierarchies of power. I don’t want to develop this line too much further but only to answer aloberhoulser’s plea to anchor this piece to the historic NOW present—our current hierarchies, with their grotesque inequality and double standards, very much resemble the hierarchies of the ancient Indian caste system. THAT is the background of my essay in terms of its relevance TODAY. Of course, the lowest of the low today are unmistakably immigrants, especially brown-skinned immigrants, not just here in the USA, but also all over the world. Poor immigrants today have effectively become our very own “untouchables,” whereas the shudra are easily homologous to the African American community and the BLM movement, which Malcom X would have characterized as he did the Civil Rights movement: a kind of “slave revolt.” James Baldwin was fond of this redefinition of a protest movement by a group of the population not considered true citizens.

There is no doubt to anybody with a clear sense of history that there is nothing “natural” or “biological” about the existence of such hierarchies, including our own, but that at each moment in history there have been powerful mythologies that have sanctified them to make us believe that they are “divinely ordained,” or ordained by “Nature” as apologists of the status quo would have us believe today—since Science plays the role of the “divinely ordained” for most modern people.

This brings me back to Stephen’s wonderful paraphrase which I think is worth repeating:

“If I understand correctly, you are saying that a living mythology isn’t something one believes in, like choosing a religion today, but is experienced simply as “what is” – part of the warp and woof of a culture – what a member of that culture knows to be true, perhaps akin to the way we experience gravity or know the world to be round.”

This is exactly the way people have experienced the workings of the global capitalist system up to now. And of course, this mythology, which largely constitutes our true mythology, has held on for many decades, even centuries, at the price of untold violence and bloodshed—forms of violence which are now resurfacing within the continental USA as if they were familiar strangers.

Nevertheless, today we are experiencing a tectonic shift in the collective psyche that is truly unprecedented. Such moments of “crisis,” when the system itself is made to feel, to realize once again, its own brittle ideological foundations—the fact that the divinely ordained itself is ordained by the human, all too human “nature”—we are at the same time witnessing the sign of a new mythology struggling to be born in freedom. Perceptible only when we dare to delve in the contradictions of what is, unafraid to sift through the rot of the system and to take a stand against it, can we speak of true mythology in the making. This is what gives me hope and keeps me going in the face of so much despair and suffering and literal bloodshed.

It is important to underscore the fact that this sense of hope cannot stem from “what is” in the self-consciousness of our present age, that mode of apologetics that would have us “naturalize” the fatal contradictions of our global system, even as it tramples on the lives of the majority of the world population—a fact, once again, in spectacular display with this pandemic in the USA.

The hope I’m speaking of is rather like a message in a bottle which has been sent from the future of what could be, from what is not-yet here: a new Rising Dawn illuminating a future form of collective consciousness.

It is just as Marx put it in a wonderfully psychological way (a quote that has been ringing in my ears for the last few days):

“Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” (Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

This may seem like an obvious insight but it is quite true that what a person thinks of himself or herself—our own “personal mythology,” or, as Stephen pointed out, the many idiosyncratic religions we might choose in a whim—that these “myths” are mostly false narratives we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good, and to justify our actions—or to cover up what we truly believe in. (Imagine trying to understand the Trump phenomenon based on what Trump thinks of himself!)

Our actions speak louder than our words, indeed, for these actions often speak of a set of ideas that are quite different from what we “officially” believe.  On the other hand, our true beliefs, the level of true mythology, is often far from our lips and their faithful service to our ego consciousness. And as Marx points out, the same is true for the entire collective and its prevailing mythologies.