[mythistorian]

Of course, we should also pay our dues to Erik Von Daniken, who seems to be in line with the phenomenological approach we are taking here—except that he is not. Nevertheless, he deserves credit for attempting to set the ground of speculation about mythic beings throughout history on a positivistic fantasy, a kind of literalism which is the exact opposite of the Jungian approach. One could wonder why Daniken ignores Jung and his postulate of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Although you could easily see what the notion of psychic archetypes would do to Daniken’s theory: it would tear it to pieces.

The approach I would like to take is not exactly the road of transcendental phenomenology. But neither is it the existential road of subjective experience and faith—although these two belong to the full complexity of my theory. And obviously, I wouldn’t take the Danikenean pseudo-scientific approach either. Like the Twins from the Popol-Vuh, my road leads to Xibalba and relates to a descendental journey of interpretation into the depths of being.