[jamesn.]

Stephen; your added insights are even more illuminating and combine beautifully with the first ones you shared. I had an interesting dream last night which I think was prompted by what you shared; (although I’m not sure if it will resonate with anything specific from the above.

I often have these little “Oracle” type messages or experiences that usually appear as one word and then almost every time I awaken immediately afterwards. The word usually given has some type of meaning or relationship to something I’ve been working on that seems to point in a certain direction I need to go or focus on. I’ve lately been concentrating on the concept of: “Core Complex” that I came across with Murray Stein and James Hollis: “Decomplexifying Complexes” that I believe also is included in Mario Jacoby’s work as well. (I’ve since traced this back to my earliest childhood experiences and I’m pretty sure it is a major influence within my “Personal Myth”; so for me this is a big deal concerning my inner work over the last 5 or 6 six years.

After I had posted my reply to you I went to bed and had this dream where I was trying to find out how to go about further exploring both my previous above experiences and asking what I need to be looking for. At one point the word: “Voice” appeared flashing as though to get my attention; and then I woke up. After I scribbled this down on my note pad beside my bed I began wondering what this word had to do with my problem and my dream message and it occurred to me that “emotion” and communication are major features of dreamwork as the unconscious is often giving signals through symbols and images of responses to things the psyche is working on so I was struck by both the timing and immediacy of the response. At any rate the links I left should help clarify my references and hopefully will add to the discussion.

Stephen; again thank you so much for all your helpful insights.

[jamesn.]

Stephen; you are so very thoughtful in offering your help with years of deep study behind it. There is an enormous amount of insight and information within this one post and it will take me quite awhile to digest it all. This is such a deep and complex subject that one can often get lost in finding their way through it all and figuring out how best to approach and apply it. As we explore the depths of our own life and attempt to mine the messages it holds for us it can often become overwhelming. But then we dream every night; and our psyche is speaking to us all the time attempting to communicate things we need to realize within our life process no matter where we are within it.

I think for some of us attempting to navigate Jungian concepts can be a truly Herculean task given the complexity of everyday modern life because the support system of one’s personal myth is unknown and that the actual assignment is to figure out where you need to go and how to get there within the backstory of making your own unconscious conscious; but that’s the job that’s given whether we like it or not; and as Joseph mentioned once: “The fates lead him who will; those who won’t they drag.”; (or something like that). But for each of us I think we must learn how these forces and this material is speaking to us and what it’s messages are when we go to sleep each night and these things come to life and speak to us in a language that’s often difficult to understand.

This is such a wonderful wealth of information Stephen; and the reading suggestions both you and Andrew have offered keep me constantly adding to my library all the time. Again; thank you for all your kind help which will keep me busy for some time to come.

[jamesn.]

Stephen and Andrew; my apologies to you both for my confusion in where I should post this question. Since there is often much confusion about engagement with one’s dreams I will start with the following queries:

“Concerning the question about “Lucid Dreaming” if I may; how do you see this in relationship to the process of: “Active Imagination”? This would seem to me to be engagement with the dream state without being awake; or to be more precise that state of pre-consciousness when one is aware that they are dreaming “but not actually awake”. (So that the awareness of it would be the dialogue between the dream state and the individual consciousness of it and engagement with it.) I hope my description makes sense.”

[jamesn.]

Sunbug; first of all your extremely kind and generous compliment about “a candle in a dark room” I actually borrowed; (we steal from the best; no?); from a very powerful movie called: “The Freedom Writer’s Diaries” based on a true life story of Erwin Gruwell; a high school English teacher who helped young teenage students learn to find their own story; and by writing about their lives in this way they learn to become in a sense their own analysts and find their common humanity when the dark world around them in which they were enveloped offered no hope of personal fulfillment or identity.

She started this process by assigning “The Diary of Anne Frank” as a metaphor against hopelessness; and the transformation that followed took them to realms beyond which they never could possibly have imagined from the lives they were presently living. At one point they went to the Holocaust Museum and then invited Miep Gies; the woman who hid Ann Frank from the Nazi’s to come and speak to them. The included scene clip above is a recreation taken from the movie where she repeats these lines and reveals to us all how we are “candles in the dark” and by helping others we also can learn to help ourselves as well.

Second; I think your post is spot on! It articulates so clearly; at least to me; so much of what this conversation concerning the “Language or Grammar of Creativity” is addressing; but Bradley and Stephen may have more to add so I will leave off and let them speak about this themselves. (Truly a beautiful response.) Again; thank you for your kindness.

[jamesn.]

Professor Olson; thank you so so much for your incredibly kind and extremely thoughtful response. I was very concerned that my questions and context would be way too muddled and confusing to sort through but you did so in such a helpful way that I now feel I am on much better footing in the way understand this whole system I can now move forward with much better confidence. (Thank you for the “Portable Jung” suggestion; I have a copy that I need to dust off and revisit.)

So many days and nights I have spent going through this material to gain a better foothold in the understanding of my process; and thanks to you I now feel I now have a much better grasp of the concepts and a way to move forward with them. I think for me and possibly others; it is sometimes so difficult to put these ideas into explainable words, feelings, and dialogue; and you have helped to confirm many of the things I suspected but was not sure I properly understood them correctly so that others might understand the thoughts I was clumsily attempting to communicate.

More simply put this is not easy material to navigate and weed through so that one feels they are on solid ground; (and this can make “all” the difference in the way they see their life course moving in the proper direction because as you suggest the ego defense mechanisms can get in the way and as so often is realized: “we fool ourselves” which keeps us from seeing who we really are instead of who we “think we are”; and what we may need to do to make the necessary adjustments like in the examples you so thoughtfully offered.

We are living in a time when incredible pressure is felt by so many of us to decipher the difference between reality and conjecture; (and we can get lost within our own: “house of mirrors” as it were); causing so much misery and pain that is reflected I think in the increasing numbers of suicides, drug abuse, and violence we see happening all around us. “We don’t know ourselves”; as the saying goes; and it is the themes that Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung have helped to provide that gives us a roadmap of our inner terrain that we would otherwise be so lost in.

This symbolic “Telesphorus” of Jung’s I think in many ways provides us with a way to think about; as one way I read; “a small light in a dark room that brings hope and meaning into mere existence” for both ourselves as well as sharing our pain with others. The Journey of the Hero is so important in a time of so much confusion and chaos; and it is work that people like you are doing that will help others to find their way forward. Thank you again for your extremely kind and generous help.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I was thinking about our conversation last night and how it was such an important realization for me in bridging a number of concepts together and I remembered a recent video clip in the JC Foundation’s YouTube channel which I’m going to add as a short addendum where Joseph and Bill Moyers talk about myth and how people can learn how to see the things that may help them in their Journey if they are open to integrating the transformative realizations that may be required along the way.

It reminded me that finding and understanding what our “Core Complex” is – is directly related to one’s personal myth and that integrating it helps to open an important doorway that otherwise may be closed to us. So see if this doesn’t ring a bell with what we were just talking about; (I think it does because to me it represents the serpent shedding it’s skin metaphorically).

The Adventure of Being Alive 

[jamesn.]

Professor Olson; What a tremendous essay you have laid out and so much to draw from which I not only have gotten so much insight; but I wonder if you would elaborate further concerning the relationship between: “archetypes and complexes”; (especially the latter). For instance the concept: “core complex” is something that is often referred to in Jungian terminology that has to do with the later-life emergence of buried aspects of the life experience that must be integrated and assimilated as the individual makes the transition from life achievement to life meaning where a new change in emphasis is demanded for growth of the individual to reach his or her intended full potential.

Often a crisis or trauma calls this aspect forth as messenger of the psyche that the individual is compelled and must make the required alchemical adjustments that the large (S)elf as the central or guiding archetype of the entire psyche; (not to be confused with the little (s)elf as ego); must answer. This code or script that is orchestrating this huge life change; (individuation); begins to transform the entire push forward toward resolution within the life process toward it’s final destination of; (as Joseph would say the dark gate) or death.

I will leave a couple things below to attempt a better description of what I’m asking your thoughts on because usually when this subject comes up Myths are what are used as metaphoric descriptors and the word (“complex” is often excluded). It is often said as Shaheda brought up in a separate discussion: “that we don’t have complexes; complexes have us”. And indeed I think it is often understood that in Jungian therapy or analysis that to get to the root of a crisis or emotional trauma the complex that is driving it must be identified and integrated so that the transcendent function can create a new symbol for the gradient flow of psychic energy; (libido); to instigate the necessary change the psyche is asking for to move forward from it’s blockage; (yes?). (I realize this is a rather convoluted explanation but please bear with me.)

So here is my first clarifier from a previous discussion:

_____________________________________________________________________________

In Stephen Larson’s: “The Mythic Image” on page 14:

“But Jung showed that while our (normal) sense of personal identity is forever threatening to dissolve at its deepest boundary into the mythic archetypes of the collective unconscious, once a person has accepted this (essential unreality of one’s own nature), he or she is for the first time in a position to construct an authentic selfhood (individuation, the creative, integrated psyche).

Individuation is to normal as normal is to neurotic, and neurotic is to psychotic. And this hierarchical model of integration-disintegration suggests that it is not the presence or absence of mythic themes in personal psychology that determines sanity, but how the ego relates to these. The cards we have been dealt by fate are a hand from a recognizable deck, which like the Tarot, is made up of a finite number of archetypal forms (fools, magicians, priestesses, hanged men, and so forth). Whether one is simply possessed by these recurring archetypes or may learn to relate to them in a creative dialogue would seem to make all the difference. Jung said, “Man must not dissolve into a whirl of warring possibilities and tendencies imposed upon him by the unconscious, but must become the unity that embraces them all.” (C.G. Jung The Practice of Psychotherapy 197.)
______________________________________________________________________________

And here is the second topic clarifier concerning the relationship of: “Complexes” to your deep and insightful essay in the form of a short clip from Jungian analyst; James Hollis. (So in other words if I’m understanding these concepts correctly in their proper application the mission of the individuation process is to identify and integrate what the “emotion-toned messages of the “Core Complex” are saying; so that like the “chrysalis” process of the larva or worm to transform into the Moth or Butterfly this alchemical process must take place; yes?). Again; sorry this explanation was not clearer. (Thank you in advance for your kind thoughts.)

_______________________________________________________________________________

I’m going to include an additional clip that has Murray Stein giving a much more in depth description on what a “Core Complex” is so as not to confuse the issue I’m attempting to address. In other words from my limited understanding this type of complex is a central focus dynamic that responds to much of the emotional tone-based stimuli that helps to shape the self-image. Analyst Mario Jacoby addressed this theme in an earlier book: “Shame and the Origins of Self-Esteem – A Jungian Approach”; which was part of a series of 5 books he wrote before he died in 2011. Stein addresses some of the ideas in those books in this link. The other books he wrote on this are: “The Analytic Encounter – Transference and Human Relationship”; “Longing for Paradise – Psychological Perspectives on an Archetype”; “Individuation and Narcissism – the psychology of self in Jung & Kohut”; and “Jungian Psychotherapy & Contemporary Infant Research”.

I do not in any way want to present an impression that I have anything more than a very limited knowledge on this topic concerning a “Core Complex”; but after spending many days immersed in these works these are my impressions so far; which is one of the reasons I’m asking these questions as they relate to many of Joseph’s themes. To me they seem to match up and down his ideas; so your thoughts on this would be extremely appreciated. (Stephen of course may have things to contribute that may disagree with my impressions since I am not a Campbell or Jungian scholar. But this is what the material seems to say to me on this subject.) Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[jamesn.]

I have spent most of the day thinking about what Stephen has clarified; and indeed the more I thought about it and looked up references the more I realized how true and on point with my personal journey this applies. First off; I am no writer; but yes, I have been trying to learn more on how to write better in expressing my thoughts as a vehicle to better understand my own journey and the personal myth that drives it. Saying that; what has become increasingly more apparent to me is as Stephen has pointed out; the two have become intertwined in the way I viewed this; (which I think others may in some ways also be experiencing themselves which I think may often cloud this issue). So the creative spark and the craft are indeed separate from the writer’s process; but I would think could also be “affected” by the archetypal influences in the way they interpret the experience as they are bringing it forth as a vehicle of consciousness.

(To be clear I am not suggesting the self/archetype as regulator of the entire psyche is not pushing the (ego as hero) to write from a creative spark of inspiration; but definitely could be affected by a separate archetypal influence; (say like in a novel of fiction as opposed to a non-fiction piece). But this would not be concerned with the individual’s life course. (Joseph often refers to esthetic art or aesthetic arrest; (setting a frame around something); as opposed to other types such as commercial art that is used to sell something). But if I’m understanding this correctly; as when Joseph talks about sacred space and bringing forth something that the individual “as artist” is experiencing as a piece of “aesthetic” expression; this distinction of clarity must be understood if it is to be realized as a true symbolic reference that is being conveyed. For instance the use of a metaphor, or the use of a symbol, or an abstract approach can all be experienced as the aesthetic as opposed to say the religious or commercial. “Spiritual” I think would be different; although you could possibly say (divine) I’m assuming; but it would be the experience that the work is attempting to reveal.

I realize this is may be a rather convoluted way of articulating my impressions of Joseph various descriptions throughout both “Pathway’s to Bliss” and Diane Osbon’s: “Reflections on the Art of Living”; as Joseph comes at this topic from different directions when making distinctions about the different categories of artistic expression. One example might be when Art took a big leap in Paris at the end of the 1st World War when he first encountered James Joyce and had to ask Sylvia Beech; owner of Shakespeare and Co. to help him understand Joyce’s work. (So please have patience with my rather clumsy descriptions.)

[jamesn.]

Thank you for this needed clarity Stephen; I always learn so much from your posts when you are able to participate. This brings me to a point I want to address that I hope will clear up any misconception that I may have given about my personal knowledge of Joseph’s work which is I have never considered myself any kind of authority and hope that whatever humble offerings I bring to the table is in some way useful to others. Many mistakes and misconceptions are often given on my part to be sure; but always with the higher good in mind. (Yes; the added refinement from you is most appreciated and always helpful. I know of no one who has given more to these forums than you have and will always look forward to what you have to say.)

[jamesn.]

Let me mention one last thing that for me was pivotal in my participation when I first joined. I was intimidated and extremely self-conscious and very reluctant to engage at first until someone reached out to me and made me feel like I belonged. This goes along way toward establishing a comfortable rapport and opens the door for discourse to happen in a warm and nurturing environment. That doesn’t mean you are suppose to agree on everything; absolutely not. But to not feel threatened and know that your ideas and opinions are respected can be the key that opens the lock to a wider world in which everyone’s opinion has worth and merit. (Btw; the “private message” feature if used properly can be a huge plus in helping to build relationships and untangle misunderstandings that can make one feel more at home.) The guidelines are another important feature as well.

[jamesn.]

Let me suggest something you might want to mull over before deciding how you want to handle this. First; ask yourself why this bothers you so; (yes; I find it a bit irritating as well); but my point being you might be able to turn this into your service by the way you write about it; (hence Stephen’s topic statement); and exploring your process.

Two; you could also invite her over here to discuss these thoughts thereby exposing her to the resources available here. After all these Forums were designed for fleshing out ideas concerning Joseph’s themes and one of the main guidelines states we don’t have to agree on everything; but “all” are welcome here and allowed to express their thoughts in a respectful atmosphere.

Three; she may not be aware of how much of the new material concerning the feminine or “Goddess” themes or principles Joseph wrote about has been released. (There is still a great deal of new material that the Foundation is in the process of publishing. And there are many new developments in store for the future as you can see as you peruse this website.) It should also considered one of the frustrating realities I think that contributes to all of this misinterpretation of what Joseph was about has to do with lack of background concerning his backstory; much less his enormous output of material on a huge variety of topics.

And lastly it should be understood Joseph was defiantly not a Jungian and said so. Joseph addressed this on page 123 in Michael Tom’s: “An Open Life” where he specifically states:

You know for some people Jungian is a nasty word, and it has been flung at me by certain reviewers as though to say, “Don’t bother with Joe Campbell; he’s a Jungian.” I’m not a Jungian! As far as interpreting myths, Jung gives me the best clues I’ve got. But I’m much more interested diffusion and relationships historically than Jung was; so that the Jungians think of me as a kind of questionable person. I don’t use those formula words very often in my interpretation of myths, but Jung gives me the background from which to let the myth talk to me.

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 just gluing yourself to what someone else has found.”

So there are a lot of misconceptions about Joseph and what he was driving at concerning his thoughts on these mythological themes and what he was attempting to convey. What I think might be preferable is sounding out these disagreements in an atmosphere of respectful discussion which is what the Forums were originally designed for before social media came into play. (Have a look at the older retired version of CoaHO as a model for a good window into the past on how this was handled.)

At any rate this is something you might want to consider before going any further; and I don’t think the continued stream of misunderstanding Joseph is going to stop anytime in the near future; (especially concerning the present state of toxic social media discourse).

[jamesn.]

Hey Shaheda; I’ve added a small addendum to my first post that provides another couple of sources concerning not only Joseph’s writing process; but the development of one’s own which I hope will compliment Stephen’s original topic statement. It would be very easy to get off topic; (especially concerning Vogler as this is an old debate; and there have been many in the past who have disagreed with Joseph’s work as Stephen no doubt can verify).

Second; in answer to your kind request about the websites you linked to I’m going to decline because I’ve pretty much got all I can handle with what I’m doing right now. Saying that; I might add I think you may find no matter how informed you are there are going to be those who neither care about being accurate or are more concerned about driving traffic to their website. Most who are concerned with what his views were have taken the time to do the proper research and realize what enormous scholarship went into what he said and how vast his research behind it was; (that is why the foundation set up this site in the first place and what it is for); and those who are seeking the correct information to make an informed opinion should come here first if they want to dispute it. Everyone of course is entitled to their own thoughts about his work; but go to the source first before claiming to be an authority about his work. I would also be careful with this topic on social media as well given the present climate of misinformation and volatility of toxic discourse.

[jamesn.]

Earlier this summer I posed a question to David Kudler; the one of the most knowledgeable of the foundation staff concerning what the relevance might be to an old gnostic text quote Joseph referred to concerning the: “hero/journey/call/quest” template, and how it might translate into today’s interpretive psychological understanding of one’s own personal myth that metaphorically Joseph might be trying to communicate. (Now I bring this particular view or approach into focus because often there are various ways a particular society, culture, or religion offers what a mythic theme represents and how it is to be applied to an individual’s life course; (often with wide differences on how this is to be interpreted and integrated into the meaning and fulfilment of one’s life).

A question was brought up in a discussion group by Shaheda concerning Chris Vogler’s version that is often applied with writers of novels and Hollywood in particular often utilizes within script writing as a go-to model in reference to plot construction.

My problem with Vogler’s particular template is that it is often seen as a concretized construct for the alchemical process that takes place within the individuation process so that all individual stories or personal life experiences have a tendency to be interpreted through this particular lens instead of the wide variation that any persons life-course may take. In other words as Joseph states throughout the various pages of chapters: 4, 5, and 6 of the book David edited: “Pathways to Bliss”; this is a discovery process of one’s own myth by which they are living; and it is definitely not a scripted one that someone might read out of a writing manual for writers. The left hand path as described in the following foundation YouTube clip clarifies this understanding precisely because it is a mystery and not a scripted sequence of events as experienced through a patterned lens. Joseph clarified this misunderstanding by stating that: “following your bliss is not a happy, happy excursion into fantasyland; but more like a transformation by following your blisters and not something preconceived because you don’t know where you are or where you are going. (And yes; I think this aspect is very often critically misunderstood.)

For instance you are not going to have a sequenced “personal crisis” like referred to on page thus and such and therefore you are required to take a hero’s journey to solve your problems in a specified order because each person’s life is so totally and uniquely different. Human beings are not patterned automatons responding to storybook archetypal images. And the point of the quest and it’s call to adventure is to find out “who” you are and what you might become in the living of one’s own life. This is the point about the myth coming out of your own experience when Joseph refers to the point about the learning, discovering, and living out of what your own myth “actually” is; and it is unique to you alone. In other words learning what this thing inside of us is saying!

Nothing wrong with Vogler’s approach concerning story telling; but each individual has their own unique life course; and Joseph’s point about the individual’s ability to respond to whatever life throws at them does not follow a sequence pattern in this regard. Yes; these are elements involved within this alchemical process and the validity of these aspects run true; but in my view as within other Campbell related themes are not to be taken literally but as he so often reminds us as metaphors of the life dynamics we must learn to interprete relating to our own experience. Not the church, not the society, not the culture or the media as a vehicle of it’s value sytems; but what speaks to us from inside.

Here was our brief conversation concerning the gnostic quote; and what it seemed to be saying to me.

_______________________________________________________________________

Me to David:
There is an old gnostic quote I’m trying to remember that goes something like:

“If you bring forth that which is within you it will save you; but if you deny that which is within you it will destroy you.”
I know this is not the precise version of the quote; but my sense of it is that it may be saying something similar. From your understanding are we talking about: “the other in you; like the shadow; or is it a denied wish or talent that has not been given it’s voice or both; perhaps suppressed from the internal Dragon power that must be faced, assimilated, or integrated as you were just mentioning?”

_________________

David:
“And James, thanks for sharing the quote from the Thomas Gospel.
I was curious, so I looked it up:

If you (plur.) produce what is in you, what you have will save you. If you do not have what is in you, what you do not have [will] kill you. — Thomas Gospel, Logion 70

I guess my answer to your question(s) would be… yes. It’s all of those. The point of the Hero’s Journey, from a psychological point of view, seems to be coming up against all of the unintegrated aspects of your own personality and either integrating them into your larger self, or being destroyed by them. Even the negative power has to be integrated before it can be tamed — at least from the Campbellian and Jungian perspective.”

__________________

To which I quoted from the following:

In Stephen Larson’s: “The Mythic Image” on page 14:

“But Jung showed that while our (normal) sense of personal identity is forever threatening to dissolve at its deepest boundary into the mythic archetypes of the collective unconscious, once a person has accepted this (essential unreality of one’s own nature), he or she is for the first time in a position to construct an authentic selfhood (individuation, the creative, integrated psyche).

Individuation is to normal as normal is to neurotic, and neurotic is to psychotic. And this hierarchical model of integration-disintegration suggests that it is not the presence or absence of mythic themes in personal psychology that determines sanity, but how the ego relates to these. The cards we have been dealt by fate are a hand from a recognizable deck, which like the Tarot, is made up of a finite number of archetypal forms (fools, magicians, priestesses, hanged men, and so forth). Whether one is simply possessed by these recurring archetypes or may learn to relate to them in a creative dialogue would seem to make all the difference. Jung said, “Man must not dissolve into a whirl of warring possibilities and tendencies imposed upon him by the unconscious, but must become the unity that embraces them all.” (C.G. Jung The Practice of Psychotherapy 197.)

_________________________________________________________________________

Now concerning Jung’s famous line from: “Memories, Dreams, and Reflections” concerning what it means to live with a myth or without one; the point about: “task of tasks” to find out what this thing is I think definitely applies here. And by engaging within this process at one’s deepest and most intimate levels without any preconceptions of what this realization might reveal about who we are and what story we are living I think refers back to Stephen’s above quote:

“Anyone writing a creative work knows that you open, you yield yourself, and the book talks to you and builds itself. To a certain extent, you become the carrier of something that is given to you from what have been called the Muses—or, in biblical language, ‘God.’ This is no fancy, it is a fact. Since the inspiration comes from the unconscious, and since the unconscious minds of the people of any single small society have much in common, what the shaman or seer brings forth is something that is waiting to be brought forth in everyone. So when one hears the seer’s story, one responds, ‘Aha! This is my story. This is something that I had always wanted to say but wasn’t able to say.’ There has to be a dialogue, an interaction between the seer and the community.”

____________________________________________________________________________

I’m going to stop here and let Shaheda, Stephen, and anyone else respond since this is an open topic relating to one’s individual process of what Joseph’s themes about the hero/call/journey template represents to them.

______________________________________________________________________________

I would like to add a small addendum concerning Stephen’s topic statement about the writing process which is covered very nicely on pages 268-271 in Diane K. Osbon’s: “Reflections on the Art of Living – A Joseph Campbell Companion”. Here Joseph goes into wonderful detail describing his process which should be of great benefit to those seeking insight into how he went about setting up his mindset before engaging his muse.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention a book Stephen recommended to me awhile back that has been a tremendous help in my own approach to writing about my personal myth which is Dennis Patrick Slattery’s: “Riting Myth, Mythic Writing” which I will leave in the above link for purchase from Amazon if interested.

[jamesn.]

Thank you for taking the time to do that David; it helped a lot. I’ve been wondering about this quote for a while and the “integration” aspect certainly makes sense. So I went and did a little digging through some various indexes to try and track this idea down into a more simplistic overview relating to individuation and finally came across this one in Stephen Larson’s: “The Mythic Image” on page 14:

“But Jung showed that while our (normal) sense of personal identity is forever threatening to dissolve at its deepest boundary into the mythic archetypes of the collective unconscious, once a person has accepted this (essential unreality of one’s own nature), he or she is for the first time in a position to construct an authentic selfhood (individuation, the creative, integrated psyche).

Individuation is to normal as normal is to neurotic, and neurotic is to psychotic. And this hierarchical model of integration-disintegration suggests that it is not the presence or absence of mythic themes in personal psychology that determines sanity, but how the ego relates to these. The cards we have been dealt by fate are a hand from a recognizable deck, which like the Tarot, is made up of a finite number of archetypal forms (fools, magicians, priestesses, hanged men, and so forth). Whether one is simply possessed by these recurring archetypes or may learn to relate to them in a creative dialogue would seem to make all the difference. Jung said, “Man must not dissolve into a whirl of warring possibilities and tendencies imposed upon him by the unconscious, but must become the unity that embraces them all.”  (C.G. Jung The Practice of Psychotherapy 197.)

Now I just happened to stumble across this passage from Stephen Larson’s book after looking through a number of various sources concerning “integration” as I mentioned before; and this was pure luck on my part because I’m certainly out of my depth concerning scholastic research. But this really seemed to fit the individuation model concerning the “Thomas Gospel” quote you so thoughtfully shared; and I thought you might find it of interest.

Thank you again for your kindness in looking it up for me.

[jamesn.]

Alex; congratulations; how exciting; you must be thrilled. It’s a wonderful piece; (thanks for the the link to read it). What a great outcome for all your hard work. Hope this opens the door to more future possibilities.

[jamesn.]

Such wonderful additional posts on this Sunbug; and if I may be permitted to add; yes some very good points about the individual reality and how one must learn how to integrate these themes that Gabrielle has highlighted into whatever life setting they find themselves in; and yes; I think each one is going to be different and the rule books of various religions or spiritual value systems are no longer to be taken literally because the modern individual is called to make up their own way as they go. I especially liked your reference to Don Quixote because Joseph was asked by Bill Moyers about him in the “Power of Myth” and he replied that the world of “Chivalry” had disappeared and Cervantes was writing about a loss of a moral code because a more industrialized kind of world had taken it’s place. And Quixote was seduced from reality by reading all these works about knighthood and saving damsels and went on his mentally delusional imaginary quest to bring it back. “But” Joseph also illuminates the understanding that he saved his own adventure for himself and by doing so brought back the jewel that refreshed the wasteland by the life he led; (metaphorically speaking of course). In other words this crazy old man attacking windmills riding an old nag with an imaginary squire; (who mainly has to keep him out of trouble); becomes a model in his own demented way for a virtuous life of character that has inspired generations for hundreds of years, (There is definitely a lesson I think in modern terms for finding the joyful sorrow/sorrowful joy for some that Joseph talks about in participating in the life of others to find the meaning of your own life.)

The most powerful example to me was the story Joseph recalled about the policeman who recognized when a young man was about to jump off a bridge in Hawaii to commit suicide when he grabbed him by the ankles as he jumped just as he was about to go over. He himself was being pulled down toward his own death but would not let go. His partner arrived just in the nick of time to help pull them both up to safety. When he was later asked why didn’t let go his answer was: “if I had let go I wouldn’t have been able to live another day of my life”. How come? Joseph recounts. “His whole life including his thoughts and dreams for his future; his responsibilities to his job and his family were at stake and yet he would not let go. Joseph said: “this is one pointed meditation that breaks through our normal vision of reality to the metaphysical realization: that you and the other (are one).”

That one still puts a lump in my throat when I think about it because we are now living in a time when so many things around us that speak of these kinds humanity based value systems are what bring water to the parched wasteland instead of the commercialistic goals that attempt to define us by saying you are what you have; instead of the person who you are inside; what your character is; how you treat people and the values you live for. At any rate I’m starting to ramble but before I stop I’ll mention something I saw during Christmas this year that reminded me of Cervantes and these value systems I was just mentioning.

I was flipping through the TV channels and came across two movies at practically the same moment. One was: “It’s a Wonderful Life”; and the other was a Terry Gilliam remake of Don Quixote in a modern day setting. Adam Driver; yes, from Star Wars; plays a movie maker who had produced an scripted version of the book 10 years earlier for commercial purposes and found himself back near the same village where the character who played Quixote had been a shoemaker had lived and went to see if he was still around. Well it turns out this person had fallen victim to the very same mental state and thought he himself had become Don Quixote called by God to save the world by restoring the “Lost Age of Chivalry”. Yes, a whole new series of misadventures occurs and his messaged realization again stirs within the human heart that we are all Don Quixote trying to bring to life what is precious and worth living for to restore a wasteland that has somehow lost it’s meaning and purpose.

Okay; now I really will stop since this is such a great topic and everyone is bringing such wonderful insights and give someone else a chance to chime in. Thanks for listening.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Now I don’t want to wander too far off from Gabrielle’s topic focus concerning the virtues and attributes of gentleness vs more dominate male behavior but often so much of what determines a moral code in a culture comes from a religious interpretation of what God wants. So I want to add a short little addendum that includes a very short clip from the foundation YouTube channel where Joseph Campbell describes the laws; (aka. the spiritual rule books of a given society); we were just discussing and the difference between a concretized spiritual interpretation of religion and a metaphorical one. In many ways his description of the difference illustrates the problem dealing with how some of the religious conflicts taking place across the planet; (like in the Middle East for example); are concerned with which version different people think is more spiritually correct or relevant and should be in control of governments and peoples lives. One can remember “The Crusades” as an example in some ways; but the real problem I think revolves around the idea of what God wants; and whether or not that God is a fact or is actually a metaphor for spiritual realization. (Also having not viewed the Ted Lasso film Gabrielle referred to I certainly don’t feel qualified to include any thoughts about something I have not seen; so please accept my apologies on that.)

[Author]

Posts