Stephen Gerringer
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Norland,
Between our first overnight visitors in a year earlier in the week, followed by an intense four hour dental ordeal, and unanticipated, related health issues, I am way behind on this conversation. I especially appreciate your explanation of myth-history, and particularly this nugget:
You see, the mythic element of historiography comes to the foreground in the MAKING process, through the necessity of having to introduce a narrative thread to bind all the facts and details into a meaningful temporal succession.
The Joseph Mali work is clearly a must-have. I do hope you get commission on all the books you’ve recommended that I end up purchasing . . .
🙂Drewie,
Filmmaking is such a powerful medium, given the way images have the power to bypass the brain and directly impact the emotions. Campbell (who served as president of the Creative Film Foundation, formed by Maya Deren in 1956 to broaden support for experimental film) toward the end of his life, noting a cultural shift from literature to film, observed that the creative spark appeared to have jumped off the page and landed behind the camera lens.
If you don’t mind my asking, how did you end up in this field? Were there films that inspired you, providing an “aha!” moment where you knew this is what you needed to do with your life? Did you follow a direct career path (e.g., majoring in film in college), or were there other options you considered along the way before coming to this realization?
My appreciation for film as pure art, rather than just a commercial enterprise controlled by the Hollywood dream factories, continues to grow. A student filmmaker in Argentina, interviewing me over Zoom a couple months ago, introduced me to the work of Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky, active from 1962 to his death in 1986; I am enraptured by his long takes and haunting, dreamlike imagery, though I’m not sure I’d call it commercially viable (plot seems secondary in his work).
I would love to know your influences, and how you thread the needle between popular commercial appeal and artistic creation (or is that even a consideration for you?)
Thank you for that story, Shaahayda! Seems whether in dream, or playing eagle and raven songs in waking life, you take flight with your flute.
😀
Looked up a few clips on YouTube – what an elegant instrument, with such a fluid sound. Do you play existing musical pieces with it, or improvise your own?
Intriguing question, Drewie. My first inclination is to say no – but then again, maybe there is some resonance here.
Summing up Joyce’s thesis, proper art is that which does not inspire one to act, but evokes aesthetic arrest: the “aha! moment when one is transfixed, transcending day world concerns. Improper art, on the other hand, takes two forms: what Joyce terms pornographic, and didactic art.
Though what we think of as pornography today certainly falls under the umbrella of Joyce’s label, that’s not the whole of what he calls pornographic art, which includes anything which inspires desire (such as a beautiful photograph of an alpine snowscape in a travel magazine advertisement, prompting one to book a vacation in the mountains). Didactic art is anything which inspires one to action for a cause (such as a haunting image that conveys the life-and-death need for social action to end child abuse). That doesn’t mean those aren’t brilliant creations or worthy goals – just not proper art as Joyce sees it.
Of course, Joyce, and Campbell, are referring to conscious intentions of an individual who creates the art to serve that intention – but individuals do not create myth; mythology emerges from the collective unconscious of a culture. So, in one sense, we are comparing apples to oranges.
But I come back to that sense of intention. An artist who intends a specific response response in his/her audience, motivating either fear (a didactic response), or desire (the pornographic response), the same two temptations presented to the Buddha, is creating improper art.
I can see a correlation between that and a “mythology” intentionally created – such attempts to force a myth are improper and, ultimately, doomed to failure.
Hitler was the master of wielding myth as a tool of the state in the twentieth century. He and Goebbels and their cohorts consciously created and imposed what might be thought of as “didactic” mythology (one based on fear of the Jews and a desire for the glory of days-gone-by) that compelled a whole nation to take up arms. It worked in the short term (e.g. the pomp and pageantry of the rallies, the shadow projections onto the Jews), but is difficult to sustain.
Another example would be Akhenaten’s abandoning the mythology of his people, substituting one – the worship of a single God, Aten – that seems wholly his own creation. That revolution in thought barely lasted the 17 years of his reign, fading away soon after his death as the old Gods re-assumed their roles.
You can’t impose a myth by fiat. Though not corresponding in exact detail with Joyce’s conceptualization re art, that, to me, comes closest to what I would define as “improper”: a manufactured myth.
Vivid dreams indeed, Drewie! Over the last quarter-century-plus I’ve recorded more than 1,000 in a dozen volumes of my Dream Journal. Took effort and energy to train myself to do that (dreams are fleeting, composed of quicksilver and gossamer threads), but definitely worth it. Over time recurring patterns become apparent, as do unexpected epiphanies , especially in terms of precognitive dreams (I don’t have unexplained deja vu experiences anymore; when that sense that “this seems to have happened before” steals over me, I am often able to track the setting, circumstances, and dynamics back to a specific dream event).
The thread James mentions on dreamwork resources is called Helpful Books on Dreams. Feel free to add any titles and descriptions of works you find useful on this subject.
Hey There, Marianne,
Figured I would provide a link to the discussion on meaning (and other tricky concepts) in the Conversation with a Thousand Faces forum. It’s called Understanding Campbell .
Hi Drewie! You write
I think as long as its a “shadow” its always evil or immoral as far as the ego can “see” and its only when integrated that can be understood as something positive, right?”
Well put! To the ego (“I,” “me,” my experience/perception of myself), the Shadow — the part of myself I can’t see and so resides in the dark (the shadow that consciousness casts) — is experienced as threatening, and hence evil. This includes good contents as well as bad.
Just as the ego contains favorable and destructive attitudes, so the shadow has good qualities––normal instincts and creative impulses.”
Man and His Symbols
C.G. Jung et.alIf from before I could form complete sentences the absolute certainty that “big boys don’t cry” had been impressed upon me by my parents and continually reinforced by the social order in which I am raised, then it’s no surprise that as an adult male I might be at the least uncomfortable with emotion, even to the point of experiencing loathing for males who do express sensitivity. I can’t entertain the thought that I have feelings even though I do, for that would mean I am weak – so I avoid seeing that in myself, stuff those feelings back into the shadows (what is dark and unknown to the waking me), but I can see that in others, so I project my self-loathing outwards. To me, my shadow is evil, but I see that shadow in them, not me.
However, sensitivity and emotion is not in itself evil, though it may feel that way to me.
Hence the moral problem Jung alludes to, which isn’t to suggest the shadow itself is immoral; rather, it takes tremendous moral effort on the part of waking consciousness to break past the default perception of the shadow as evil and embrace its contents as part of one’s whole self.
Of course, no matter how much we embrace the process of integration, there will still always be shadow, still parts of ourselves not directly known to consciousness that make us uncomfortable to contemplate at best – but being open to the shadow aspects of one’s being does help depotentiate the shadow, blunt the destructive powers of the darkness. (Ironically, rather than the shadow itself necessarily being evil, it can compel the person – or the society – whose shadow it is to perform horrible evil.)
From this understanding of my shadow, over the years I have asked my wife to quell the impulse to reach out to wake and soothe me when I am agitated at night, clearly experiencing a nightmare. Only rarely do the dream terrors chase me awake – and when they do, I find myself marveling at and attentive to what it is that is striving to emerge from my unconscious. Sometimes it takes a few days (and a succeeding dream or two) to process what is going on, but I end up with so much more information about myself, and a broader, deeper sense of who I am once I am aware of and partner with what I have been running from, metaphorically speaking.
But most of the time my wife tells me my nightmares resolve themselves without waking, and I settle back into peaceful slumber. Often I do remember the dream, and the resolution: the murderous thug I’m trying to lock out of the house enters, and the dream shifts as that figure morphs into someone offering me food or drink, or events take a positive, even celebratory turn (that’s a generic example – remembered vignettes vary, but that does get across the trajectory). And that shift mirrors the shift that seems to follow in waking life.
But now I ramble. Glad to see you and James reviving this fascinating conversation . . .
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WORLD RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES (scatalogically defined):
AGNOSTICISM: We don’t know shit.
ALTRUISM: Want some shit?
AMISH: Shit dost occur.
APATHY: I don’t give a shit.
ATHEISM: I don’t believe this shit.
BA’HAI: All shit is truly shit.
BUDDHISM: Shit happens.
BAPTIST FUNDAMENTALISM: Shit happens because the Bible says so.
CAPITALISM: How much will this shit cost?
CATHOLICISM: If shit happens, you deserved it.
CLASSICAL MARXISM: The workers take all the shit, but they’re gonna dish it back out again.
COMMUNISM: It’s everybody’s shit.
CONTRACT THEORY: If we don’t agree to form society, everything will go to shit.
DARWINISM: We came up from shit.
DESCARTES: I shit therefore I am.
DIANETICS: Shit your way to a better life.
DYSLEXIANISM: Hits shapnep.
EPISCOPALIANISM: When shit happens, make it tasteful.
GNOSTICISM: Know shit.
HINDUISM: This shit has happened before.
JUDAISM: Why does shit always happen to US?
MARINES: It’s not just shit, it’s an adventure.
MCCARTHYISM: Are you now, or have you ever been, shit?
MENNONITE: None of this modern shit now.
MOMISM: You’ll eat this shit and like it!
MORMONISM: Shit’s going to happen. Stockpile.
NARCISSISM My shit don’t stink.
NIHILISM Everything is shit.
OBJECTIVISM (Ayn Rand): Shit is Shit.
PAGANISM: Shit happens – and is a part of nature.
POLYANNA-ISM: This is the best of all possible shits.
PLATONISM There is an ideal shit, of which all the shit that happens is but an imperfect image.
RASTAFARIANISM: Let’s smoke this shit.
ROUSSEAU: Only natural shit is worth shit.
SOLIPSISM: The only thing I can be sure of is that my shit happens.
STALINISM: The state treats you like shit.
SUBGENIUS: Bob happens –– SO GIVE ME SOME SLACK!
SURREALISM: Shit is shiny and shaped like a buick.
SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM: Shit happens all at once
SECULAR HUMANISM: Shit happens, but there’s a rational explanation.
TAOISM: The shit that happens is not the true shit.
TWELVE STEP PROGRAMS: We’re powerless over shit.
UNITARIANISM: There’s only one shit, but you can have it happen any way you want.
UTILITARIANISM: Do that which generates the greatest shit for the greatest number.
VANDALISM: I’m gonna wreck this shit!
YUPPIEISM: It’s my shit! All mine!
ZEN: What is the sound of shit happening?
ASTROLOGY: Uranus transits.
Thank you for your understanding, Dennis. Ideally, the point of these MythBlast discussions is exactly that – focusing on thoughts, observations, and questions arising from your essay. We wouldn’t be able to attract many authors and “mythological luminaries” like yourself to this table if they had to worry about being assigned homework, so to speak.
But apart from that, the forum guidelines (currently posted at the top of every forum), prohibit individuals from posting their own work here, with one significant exception:
8. Refrain from Self-Promotion Announcements linking to your new blog post, book, workshop, video clip, etc., will be deleted, unless they are demonstrably part of the greater conversation. The only exception is the Share-Your-Work Corner, a subforum within The Conversation with a Thousand Faces. If you have art, poetry, writing, or links to music and other work you would like to share, do so here.
We consciously created the Share-Your-Work Corner as an exception to the rule, allowing people to share original work without disrupting the flow of existing conversations. Here one can find anything from poetry to published papers, as well as links to blogs and books and such.
Thanks again for your understanding.
Hello Lee,
Actually, the place to post your own writing is in the “Share Your Work” corner, which is a sub-forum within the “Conversation with a Thousand Faces” forum at the bottom of COHO’s main page. Here is a link to that section. If you can’t unlock the Google Doc, you might try copying-and-pasting it (follow the link, scroll to the bottom of the page, type “The Homeless Man” into the topic area, and paste your essay into the field provided).
Might need some formatting, but you can always work on that after it’s up.
Thanks, Lynn, for sharing this – it’s one of the more comprehensive definitions of myth (from anyone, not just Campbell), and of the difference between a myth and a mythology. Much as I appreciate his tongue-in-cheek characterization of mythology as “other people’s religion,” which always elicits a chuckle, this one I have found much more useful in conveying Joe’s ideas, especially to college students and their professors.
Thanks, Lynn, for sharing this – it’s one of the more comprehensive definitions of myth (from anyone, not just Campbell), and of the difference between a myth and a mythology. Much as I appreciate his tongue-in-cheek characterization of mythology as “other people’s religion,” which always elicits a chuckle, this one I have found much more useful in conveying Joe’s ideas, especially to college students and their professors.
Happy Day, Robert,
You write
Free will for me is our inalienable right to freedom of conscious choice.
I believe wholeheartedly in free will. We have the ability to choose freely for better or worse our decisions in life. We have the freedom to make mistakes change our minds , live and learn.I concur with the idea of acting “as if” we have free will, but do we really? There is a case to be made that free will, in terms of conscious intention, is an illusion.
Experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet (research scientist in the physiologist department at UC Berkeley) and a team of consciousness researchers in 1983 (replicated by neurophysiologists I Keller and H. Heckhausen in Munich in 1990) suggest that we form a consciousness intention roughly half a second after brain activity stimulating muscle movement begins, but then project that “conscious” intention back in time so that, from our perspective, it’s our conscious thought that initiates the action.
In other words (this is a simplistic example on my part, but conveys the idea), I am thirsty and decide to drink some water. I experience that as a conscious intention – but the brain activity that stimulates my muscles to reach for the glass of water actually begins half a second before “I” make the decision to reach for that glass! The source of the action is then unconscious, rather than a conscious choice (though I experience it as such), with consciousness catching up to reality after the fact – no more a product of conscious intention than the bodily processes of digesting food or converting oxygen into hemoglobin.
That is quite different than the common conception of free will.
In subsequent experiments Libet and his team accrued evidence that, though the initiation of the action is unconscious, one can consciously interrupt the process (I am thirsty, my brain initiates activity to quench that thirst, but my conscious will intervenes and decides not to reach for the water); this led Libet and his colleagues to conclude that free will exists in the power of the veto: we can’t consciously decide to take an action (even though that’s the story we tell ourselves), but we can consciously decide not to perform an action: e.g. at the level of brain activity I am preparing to reach for the water, but then the conscious me is able to derail that process.
Libet’s results were widely accepted at the time – so no surprise this roiled the debate over determinism vs. free will. I am definitely intrigued (especially with the idea that free will has its source in the “no”), but in recent years this has generated more controversy as some scientists are now raising questions and suggesting alternate interpretations of Libet’s results. The jury remains out as more experiments are being designed to test the hypothesis. I look forward to following the debate.
Setting all that aside, I am curious how you handle the question of fate – is there such a thing from your perspective?
Personally, I don’t believe it’s an either/or, clear-cut case of black-and-white so much as”both-and”: life is a spectrum, a blend of volition and determinism. Some things we assume to be a conscious choice might not be that at all. At the same time, I am a devoted aficionado of Campbell’s concept of “as if”; acting as if I had free will works for me.
Personally, I like how Jawaharlal Nehru (first prime minister of India and father of Indira Gandhi), expressed it:
Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”
