Nandu; I don’t know if this clip connects with any of your thoughts about Joseph’s ideas or not; but if nothing else it may be food for thought.

Here is one more that touches on the same sorts of themes of the way we interpret consciousness as categories of thought; and the way we think about our existence as related to them. The East and West; or some may say: “occident vs orient”; varies widely as he points out about the notion of the “individual vs the collective society”; and have much to do with how these symbols and signs he talks about are interpreted:

Nandu; my apologies for not being able to finish my post explanations for I’ve been having internet connection problems all week. (I’ll try this again.)

Joseph had no problems with the connection of science to spirituality; at least as I understood him. He saw science as a physical manifestation of what the spiritual was referring to; and that there is no ultimate meaning to existence; but that we provide the context to which these spiritual constructs are referring. The flower of the Buddha’s sermon is a symbol of “isness”; and the idea of “faith” in religion is a concretized interpretation of something that “experience as knowledge” replaces. Science and transcendence are part of the same package. “You” are the God and the creator of your own life; and these symbolic references represent realizations or constructs of consciousness that you are to experience; duality juxtaposes opposites such as God and the Devil; against each other as thresholds to be crossed as working through the various crisis situations you experience. Compassion as opposed to hatred of the other person are actually the war within you that is taking place. That other person is actually “you” as seen from the other side metaphorically. And these levels of consciousness we all must go through refer to these varying points of view within these different spiritual “thou shalt” systems. Some use symbols; some go past them; some exclude them all together. At least this is the way I understood Joseph’s interpretations. This may or may not line up with your thoughts on these ideas. (This took me about 5 attempts to post so it will have to be the best I can do for the moment.) Namaste; my friend.

Well, Nandu, looks like at the next meeting of the Cult of Campbell there is going to be an excommunication as you are “cast into outer darkness, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth” (do forgive the biblical phrasing – not sure what the corresponding Hindu condemnation would be).

This, by the way, would be one of the few times when one of those laughing emoticons would come in handy, so anyone new stumbling across this thread who is new to the forums would realize I’m not being serious. Kidding aside, I think this post would be better titled “Where I Disagree with Joe Campbell,” rather than “Why I Disagree . . .,” as seems there remain at least  a few areas of agreement.

Even though I am not from India, your criticism of Campbell’s depiction of Hinduism rings true to me, at least to a degree. There is a tendency for outsiders to view other cultures’ beliefs, whether that other culture is Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, as monolithic in nature (e.g., “Hindus believe this,” or “Christians believe that,” etc.), ignoring the wide range of variations within those belief systems. Indeed, given hundreds of denominations, there are ever so many Christian sects that other Christian sects view as not exactly Christian (indeed, many evangelical churches consider Catholicism as paganism wearing a clerical collar, while the Catholic Church has quite a history of condemning, persecuting, torturing, immolating, or making war on other Christians – and then the majority of Protestants think the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses churches aren’t Christian at all – but still, those of non-Christian faiths, as well as many scholars who do believe in Jesus, tend to refer to Christianity in general terms).

At the same time, whether or not Hinduism was created “after the fact” to carry the water for the Vedic religion, are you suggesting no one whom we think of as Hindus either now, or centuries or millennia in the past, has ever actually believed in a “philosophy of self-realization leading to identification with the Brahman, the ground of all being”? That doesn’t quite ring true to me.

Along that line, I am curious whether you are suggesting many of the core myths we think of as belonging to Hinduism were later creations formed all at once by Vedic practitioners and projected backwards in time? That, too, doesn’t seem compatible with the way mythologies  emerge and shift shape over time. I have no doubt many of these myths were co-opted and stitched together, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, by adherents to the Vedic religion, in the same way Christianity has emerged out of and “borrowed” from multiple pre-Christian traditions, but that doesn’t mean the origins of these myths aren’t genuine. Similarly, Arthurian lore consists primarily of tales of gods and heroes in the Celtic tradition updated and given a make-over compatible with the dominant Christian belief system – sometimes consciously, but often note (indeed, some versions present more-or-less subversive disruptions of Christian dogma).

Those caveats notwithstanding, your disagreement with Campbell on this point does strike a chord – and I’m not certain that Joe would completely disagree with your criticism. Indeed,  in 1954 while visiting India, Campbell certainly bumped up against the difference between idealized interpretations of Hinduism presented by Schopenhauer, Zimmer, and even himself, versus the reality of how it is actually practiced (which really comes through in his personal observations of his trip, recorded in his Asian Journals – specifically, Baksheesh & Brahman; Campbell at times seems at least a bit peeved at the difference between theory and his actual experience).

Time is a bit of a constraint at the moment, so a little bit later I’ll play a bit with your thoughts about Campbell and mysticism (of course he and Jung are mystics, though I wouldn’t exactly say atheism and mysticism – and certainly not science and mysticism – are mutually exclusive).

And at some point I will contribute a post or two about areas where I disagree with Campbell.

Thanks, Nandu, for pioneering this topic. That’s what the current iteration of Conversations of a Higher Order has been missing – controversy and conflict!

Namaste (whether you like it or not)

Stephen; your deep background in Joseph’s work “shines” here and articulates in a much better and more concise way what my feeble version was attempting to convey. Again; my frustrations with my internet connect have probably conjured up some ancient; “God of yore” wanting to have a little fun; so your insights provided a much better job at clarity. (Joseph referred to his computer when talking with Moyers as resembling Yahweh with a lot of rules and no mercy; so perhaps my weakness in this area of knowledge provoked his trickster “humor”; lol) At any rate as you point out;  Nandu’s pioneering spirit indeed deserves appreciation for this is often an area where few attempt to venture. Hope my effort did something at promoting interest!

Hello,
I believe in this day and age it is recommended to weigh all pros and cons in areas we deem interesting. With the advent of the computer internet google and other search engines we don’t suffer from lack of information. In fact we now suffer from information overload. I believe this a good thing because it creates more discernible individuals. There are many critiques and criticisms of Joseph Campbell on the web. I enjoy reading them all. I also still enjoy Joseph Campbell after reading what the critics have to say. The rabbit hole that is the internet is also a honeycomb cave. I read all with no fear. I take all with as a grain of salt . I do like salt that Crystal clear Cubic mineral preservative essential for the proper function of life. I enjoy myth metaphor allegory etymology. I thank Joseph Campbell for flaming a spark in my active imagination and streams of consciousness. My life has been enriched for having read him along with many others. It has been and will continue to be Lots of Fun. I live my life as a Wake … as possible thanks to JC JJ et al …

I like to to think of Joseph Campbell as the reigning priest in the grove of popular myth. Aka the sacred grove of Diana at Nemi. Critics and contenders have challenged. Still none have toppled or conquered JC in this pop grove of myth. Yes there are more knowledgeable specialists in their respective fields. May they propagate harvest produce a bounty . But none come close to communicating with the flair of general knowledge the way JC does through his work and writing.  May  ”The Golden Bough” “Bloom” eternal !!! May the …,phrase you’re,… contemplating wax  wane  reign  forever poetic !!! All hail perennial Humanity !!!

May JC take his place as a leaf on the Tree of Life !!!

“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”

from wiki article on Joseph Campbell.

“Academic reception and criticism
Campbell’s approach to myth, a genre of folklore, has been the subject of criticism from folklorists, academics who specialize in folklore studies. American folklorist Barre Toelken notes that few psychologists have taken the time to become familiar with the complexities of folklore, and that, historically, Jung-influenced psychologists and authors have tended to build complex theories around single versions of a tale that supports a theory or a proposal. To illustrate his point, Toelken employs Clarissa Pinkola Estés’s (1992) Women Who Run with the Wolves, citing its inaccurate representation of the folklore record, and Campbell’s “monomyth” approach as another. Regarding Campbell, Toelken writes, “Campbell could construct a monomyth of the hero only by citing those stories that fit his preconceived mold, and leaving out equally valid stories… which did not fit the pattern”. Toelken traces the influence of Campbell’s monomyth theory into other then-contemporary popular works, such as Robert Bly’s Iron John: A Book About Men (1990), which he says suffers from similar source selection bias.[73]

Similarly, American folklorist Alan Dundes is highly critical of both Campbell’s approach to folklore, designating him as a “non-expert” and outlining various examples of source bias in Campbell’s theories, as well as media representation of Campbell as an expert on the subject of myth in popular culture. Dundes writes, “Folklorists have had some success in publicising the results of our efforts in the past two centuries such that members of other disciplines have, after a minimum of reading, believe they are qualified to speak authoritatively of folkloristic matters. It seems that the world is full of self-proclaimed experts in folklore, and a few, such as Campbell, have been accepted as such by the general public (and public television, in the case of Campbell)”. According to Dundes, “there is no single idea promulgated by amateurs that has done more harm to serious folklore study than the notion of archetype”.[74]

According to anthropologist Raymond Scupin, “Joseph Campbell’s theories have not been well received in anthropology because of his overgeneralizations, as well as other problems.”[75]

Campbell’s Sanskrit scholarship has been questioned. Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, a former Sanskrit professor at the University of Toronto, said that he once met Campbell, and that the two “hated each other at sight”, commenting that, “When I met Campbell at a public gathering, he was quoting Sanskrit verses. He had no clue as to what he was talking about; he had the most superficial knowledge of India but he could use it for his own aggrandizement. I remember thinking: this man is corrupt. I know that he was simply lying about his understanding”.[76] According to Richard Buchen, librarian of the Joseph Campbell Collection at the Pacifica Graduate Institute, Campbell could not translate Sanskrit well. However, Buchen adds that Campbell worked closely with three scholars who did translate Sanskrit well.[77]

Ellwood observes that The Masks of God series “impressed literate laity more than specialists”; he quotes Stephen P. Dunn as remarking that in Occidental Mythology Campbell “writes in a curiously archaic style – full of rhetorical questions, exclamations of wonder and delight, and expostulations directed at the reader, or perhaps at the author’s other self – which is charming about a third of the time and rather annoying the rest.” Ellwood notes that “Campbell was not really a social scientist, and those in the latter camp could tell” and records a concern about Campbell’s “oversimpification of historical matters and tendency to make myth mean whatever he wanted it to mean”.[78] The critic Camille Paglia, writing in Sexual Personae (1990), expressed disagreement with Campbell’s “negative critique of fifth-century Athens” in Occidental Mythology, arguing that Campbell missed the “visionary and exalted” androgyny in Greek statues of nude boys.[79] Paglia has written that while Campbell is “a seminal figure for many American feminists”, she loathes him for his “mawkishness and bad research.” Paglia has called Campbell “mushy” and a “false teacher”,[80] and described his work as a “fanciful, showy mishmash”.[81]

Campbell has also been accused of antisemitism by some authors. In a 1989 New York Review of Books article, Brendan Gill accused Campbell of both antisemitism and prejudice against blacks.[82] Gill’s article resulted in a series of letters to the editor, some supporting the charge of antisemitism or accusing Campbell of having various right-wing biases, others defending him. However, according to Robert S. Ellwood, Gill relied on “scraps of evidence, largely anecdotal” to support his charges.[83] In 1991, Masson also accused Campbell of “hidden anti-Semitism” and “fascination with conservative, semifascistic views”.[84] Contrarily, the “fascist undercurrents” in Campbell’s work and especially its influence on Star Warshave been called “a reminder of how easily totalitarianism can knock at any society’s door.”[85]

The religious studies scholar Russell T. McCutcheon characterized the “following [of] the bliss of self-realization” in Campbell’s work as “spiritual and psychological legitimation” for Reaganomics.[86]”

Frazer = ,phrase you’re,

Stephen,

Your preaching to the choir. No need to attack critics for me. Criticizing the critic is entering the slippery slope toward mutually acclaimed anathema. There is room enough for descension.

Joseph Campbell’s place as founding pillar of his institution The JCF is secure. There are many good soldiers in the the army of Joe. G.I. Joe’s one and all. The JCF has its hierarchy in place with many good administrators. May the spirit of Mr. Campbell receive protection and live through his growing institution. May the axis of Mount Campbell never completely solidify concretize petrify. May the wellspring and magma flow eternal from its source. May the growing verdant fertile Bush burn forever bright, “Bloom”, at its pinnacle.

I think a mythopoetic etymological study of the name Joseph from a Judeo-Christian perspective would shed some understanding on Joseph Campbell’s position as founding father of his institution. It is very Jungian and archetypical. Which does lead to egalitarian patriarchal structural schema. All hail seminal figures and thinkers that rely on a priori narratives and structures. Joseph Campbell is a giant that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

I for one am in favor of some good natured old fashioned hagiography and hero worship being tossed Mr. Campbell’s way. It is become a dying art form. He is a man that darned many a hat wore many a mask during his incarnation his visitation his Journey here on 🌎 this Pale Blue Dot. Perhaps the recruitment of some anonymous pseudonymous writer artists is in order. Someone that could create a Virtual ARQ to float and transverse the abyss of cyberspace bringing us forever by commodious vicus back to this feed.  As food for thought.

R³

Stephen; I think you articulated this aspect of what I would call mimicking or parroting Joseph’s thoughts and ideas really well. And I would be surprised if most people who hold his insights up as something to emulate didn’t at some time or another find themselves suspect in some way to falling under this spell. Speaking for myself this definitely would be true since I consider him in many ways a kind of mentor even though I never met him. But saying that I think this only natural since any culture pushes us as human beings in some kind of direction; whether we are aware of it or not; (especially concerning things like peer pressure).

But more and more I keep finding myself questioning: “is what I’m saying and thinking a reflection of what I truly think and feel; or are these things echo’s from Joseph’s influence?”; and if I’m honest I would have to say in many ways they absolutely are! But as I’m coming to realize more and more I think it was Joseph’s intent to use the things he shared as more of a roadmap to developing my own point of view; my own voice; my own way of experiencing and looking at the world through the context of my own life experiences.

Eastern and Western cultures are very different; but the world is rapidly changing in many ways – while at the same time people are trying to hold on to many of the timeless values born out of the perceptions that produced them. We can say: “there is nothing new under the sun”; but within this new: “freefall into the future”; mankind is experiencing the cross-pollination of cultures in ways I think are going to affect the ways we experience the world and our lives within it in ways we can’t yet know. The computer and the internet; the human genome; going to the moon and then on to inter-steller space; the coming of climate change and global warming; and now this global virus pandemic are all examples to consider.

Disagreeing with Joseph is a difficult question for me since I have been so influenced by his ideas; (especially concerning with the unlocking of Carl Jung’s ideas as applied to my own life which is now forever changed); but I don’t want to digress. Below is a quote of mine from the mentoring thread which might better describe my feelings about this; some of which was borrowed from a conversation Joseph had with Michael Toms in: “An Open Life” on page 123.
___________________________________________________

Joseph:

If I do have a guru of that sort, it would be Zimmer–the one who really gave me the courage to interpret myths out of what I knew of their common symbols. There’s always a risk there, but it’s the risk of your own personal adventure instead of gluing yourself to what someone else has found.”

_______________________________________________________

Me:

To me this is a central feature that should be held up as something to strive for; the ability to not only follow your own unique individual path; but to use your own point of view as a guide. Something that speaks to you out of your own center in your own voice; something that gives you a sense you are following your own: “North Star” as your guide. We all need models and the mentor I think helps the individual to find and develop their own idea of possibility of their own: “reason for being”.; or put another way: their own: “personal myth”. I think this is Joseph’s main theme around which many of the other aspects or dimensions constellate. (The hero is a major archetype that resonates in everyone; and Joseph stated this another way from the ancients: “It is in you, go and find it”.)

____________________________________________________

I don’t know if the above adequately addresses or applies to the overall themes in this thread of disagreeing with Joseph or not; (perhaps a mixture of light and dark with shades of grey mixed in). But at this stage of my life I don’t think I could easily separate where one ends and the other begins. I currently just started reading a new book Stephen recommended on another thread: Dennis Patrick Slaattery’s: “Riting Myth Mythic Writing”; which may help provide some clues concerning my personal myth and my own voice as separate from Joe’s influence. Anyway; I thought this might add something concerning Stephen’s above post since we all have Joseph’s influence in common; but we might view his ideas in completely ways through very different cultural lenses. Hopefully this humble addition will contribute something to Nandu’s topic.

Stephen,

Yes apotheosis is always an issue. That is why I always maintain a sense of humor on these matter. Especially when someone else’s words seem appropriate and seem to give me a voice where I once was mute, give me sight where once I was blind but now I see. Of course Brian is code for and symbolic of a dyslexic brain !!! Vowel impositioning reversal mirroring can lead to comic relief in the tragic drama of life. It only hurts when I laugh. I only laugh when I’m suffering.

R³

This is indeed an interesting topic to delve into.
As I read Nandu’s post, I was curious to know if the conclusion was arrived at , after years of trying to reconcile with Joe Campbells rather indulgent take on Hinduism , or a first hand impression.
Nandu introduced me to J.C through the Hero of a Thousand faces. And ever since Im a great admirer of Josephs incisive and articulate genius. And how effortlessly and unassumingly did he add dimensions and socioreligious context , to obscure rituals that remain shrouded in what Nandu had termed Orthopraxy. Despite not being as politically articulate nor half as erudite as Nandu, our perceptions were shaped by the same sociopolitical dynamics that prevailed in Kerala.
As a scion of a secular Hindu family of a deeply religious parents, I had the fortune to be exposed to the deep – often cryptic culture of practicing Hinduism as well as a good dose of liberalism that prevailed in my hometown which was relatively the most cosmopolitan in Kerala.
Like all youngsters I had voiced more questions than could be answered. I went through phases of contesting the premise of my religion -then ignoring it – and to finally reexamining it.
And I cannot thank J.C enough for providing clues to finding perspective, and the ability to perceive the larger canvas on which – not only my religion – but all categories of Human thought that reflect his/her inner environment – are so exquisitely crafted.
I can understand Nandus angst at the movement to establish a Vedism based monoculture and I share his sentiment that its a revolting and a dangerous idea.
But then I look to Hinduism -as jameson put it the juxtaposing of the conflicting parts of the Whole.
For every Manu or a brahmin zealot a detractor is born in India to oppose him.
Infact there are studies that indicate that Manusmrithi is a product of the anxiety of the priestly class which was facing existential threat from reformist forces.
That is what Krishna means when he declares that he will take form on earth to correct the inequilibrium.
Regarding Caste- it is a European term for the social structure that existed in India made up of different social and community groups called Jati .
But according to a famous Historian Romila Thapar the Jati system existed even before religion incorporated and reorganised it into a horizontally stratified social structure.
So the term Caste which referred to Ex Jew converts to Christianity who were identified so that the privileges accorded to Gentiles did not extend to them is inadequate to describe the Indian social architecture.
Even if the Religion faded away – the empty shell that it had inhabited, will be replaced by political ambitions that will give impetus to new found social mobility to a shackled humanity.
A realist can easily understand that the Jati form the backbone of the Indian society and it may get restructured and eroded but never give way.
Those who would never fit in where either néecha (outcasts) or Nishedhis (those who rejected the system). Mahavira the aghoras the ShaivaTantriks patanjalis Sri Buddha the Charvakas the Samkhya where all Nishedhis.
The moral of the story is what Lee Yuan Kew the father of Singapore puts so succintly-
To oppose is the Indian way – it is in their blood.
I love the way Hinduism embraces conflict as a necessary element in its narrative. It is reflected in our Swastika.
So to paint the entire Hindu civilization in one colour as a repressive system that trapped millions hapless souls may be true only up to a point.
That is another Monolith that we need to take down.

Hello Nandu,

I’d like to focus, if you don’t mind, on your second area of disagreement with Joseph Campbell (no rush getting back to me on this – I suspect this is the beginning of a long, leisurely conversation. Once you do reply, I might try splitting our exchange off from the original thread, so it doesn’t get lost amid the thickets of the earlier discussion of European  projections onto the history of Hinduism).

You describe that difference as follows:

2. Mysticism: It seems to me that both Joe and Jung were mystics to a certain extent. Over the years, I have become more and more of a hardcore rationalist. I am an atheist for all practical purposes now; and I don’t believe that there is any “mystery” out there not accessible to science.

However, I am a writer – and I do believe that both myth and art proceed from the same source. So on this level, I can still connect with Joe, and deal with all his theories as concepts which are useful for me to connect with my inner muse. You can call me a “spiritual atheist”.

I don’t seem to recall Jung having a problem with being described as a mystic – and I have no trouble embracing that label myself. Campbell, however, has a different perspective:

I’m not a mystic, in that I don’t practice any austerities, and I’ve never had a mystical experience. So I’m not a mystic. I’m a scholar, and that’s all.

I remember when Alan Watts one time asked me, “Joe, what yoga do you practice?” I said, “I underline sentences.” And that’s all I’m doing. My discipline is taking heavy notes and correlating everything I read with everything else I’ve read. I have nine drawers full of notes, and I have four more packed down in the cellar that I can’t get another piece of paper in. For 40 years I’ve taken notes on these materials that seemed to me to be opening the picture to my mind⁠.” (Interview with Jeffrey Mishlove)

Maybe it would help if you shared your understanding of what a mystic is, which seems different than Joseph Campbell’s understanding (that’s not to determine which is correct, but to ensure our vocabulary doesn’t trip us up and have us thinking we disagree where our perspectives actually overlap, and vice versa).

Campbell’s definition would appear to be that a mystic is someone who has had a mystical experience – an actual experience of the transcendent which can not be put into words, as opposed to using words as metaphors for the transcendent (which is done by mystics and non-mystics alike).

I would agree with that definition, as far as it goes, which is in sync with my own subjective experience. You mention that you are now an atheist and believe there are no mysteries out there which are not accessible to science; that may be, but I’m not clear as to why either of those beliefs would preclude and/or negate a mystical perspective. One doesn’t need to believe in deity to be a mystic (multiple schools of Buddhist thought attest to that), nor disbelieve in science (theoretical physicists and Nobel winners Erwin Schrödinger and Wolfgang Paul are just two scientists of many who come to mind); heck, the wave-particle paradox is a scientifically confirmed example of what lies beyond and remains inaccessible to human experience and conception.

Campbell’s understanding of mysticism appeals to me. I have experienced what cannot be put into what words, experiences that I can’t “describe” to anyone who has not had such themselves, but can only “talk around.” There is no way I can rationally explain or convey these subjective experiences, which some might describe as existing only in my head – crazy talk, if you will.

That might explain some of the confusion re the congruence you see between mysticism and a belief in God. Some mystics do describe experiencing “God” – but that’s essentially a shorthand term to describe a mystical experience that is beyond words; however, it is difficult for the bulk of people, who have never had such an experience and likely never will, to avoid injecting personifications and projections of the “God” their culture/society/church/family subscribes to onto that term.

In one of my junior high literature classes nearly two decades ago, I had an inspiration I thought might help to illustrate for students this inadequacy of language to describe an experience of what is beyond human experience.

Fortunately for me, Stephanie Gutierrez was in this class; Stephanie was gifted with the voice of an angel – just two weeks before, during an official flag-raising ceremony honoring the victims of the recent 9/11 attacks, she sang the national anthem in front of the whole school – which was all the more poignant because Steph had been blind since birth.

So, having cleared this with Stephanie ahead of time, I asked the class to raise their hands if they believed the color red actually exists. Naturally all students raised their hands. Then I challenged Steph’s classmates to describe the color red to her in such a way that she would “get” it – and watched with fiendish delight as they struggled to describe the indescribable.

One student said that red is hot, like red-hot coals – but I pointed out that red can be cool, like an apple or strawberry you take out of the fridge to eat. Some said red means “stop,” like a red light or stop sign – but Steph pointed out that what means “stop” for her at a main intersection is a specific sound that’ s made when the light changes from green to red, so would that noise be the same as red?

Some spoke of red as anger, others claimed it meant danger, and some said love or sex (red roses, red valentines, passion), and so on

. . . but, ultimately, the best they could do was hand Stephanie a collection of metaphors.

I pointed out that Stephanie has no point of reference for any of these metaphors. She knows that sighted people claim to experience something they call the color red: they believe in  and will respond to that something, but that to her is no proof there really is such a thing. What is real, and what she must deal with, is that people believe and act as if there were a color red, so she certainly takes that into account – but when it comes to the objective existence of the color red, she is, at best, an agnostic.

Similarly those who have never experienced a mystical state, whether Campbell, you, or billions of others – it does not necessarily follow there is no such thing, any more than Stephanie’s experience is proof the color red does not exist.

But pardon my digression. Back to your differences with Campbell: the fact that you and Joe might define your terms differently does not necessarily mean you that are at odds in what you believe (as you pointed out, you think of Joe as a mystic “to a certain extent”); the difference seems to that, though he never had such an experience himself, he might have been more open to mystical experiences reported by others.

So I’m curious: what do you mean by mysticism? Can you narrow down where, exactly, you and Joseph Campbell actually disagree?

Mind blowing example Stephen, always thought I understood the problem of qualia but yeah now it makes much more sense, thanks for sharing this.

Hmm, I dont think Campbell or Jung were mystics. When I first start reading Campbell, he gave me that impression too because such is the nature of what they study. Myth and the unconscious is something elusive that still holds many secrets if you ask me. You can “science” them to oblivion but they will still remain elusive. We would all like to hang our hat and say… this is how the world works but unfortunately there is no such thing. And that goes for everyone whether you are religious or scientifically oriented.

Anyways, now about mysticism in general. I have mixed thoughts about it. Life seems to me like a mystical experience to begin with despite how we define and label ourselves. That being said it is kinda hard for me to accept the more traditional sense of mysticism, like someone who goes out and just meditates. On the other hand mysticism might just be what we are lacking in a rationalistic modern world that is without meaning and purpose because how else are you gonna approach and make sense of a chaotic and infinite universe. Certainly not with a rational mind, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

In a world were all the mythological structures have collapsed , Campbell and Jung seem to be exactly what the world needs. They really give you the tools to create your own mythology and live your life fully. I think that is all what they were trying to do. Its weird because they analyze myths and deconstruct them but they don’t exclude the mysterious aspect of life.

Anyways.. I’ll come back tomorrow for more, bit tired now.

And happy new year all!!