Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2014 - 12:20pm PT
|
For myself, posting here is a form of mental exercise. Others might consider it otherwise
A perceptive comment, Bushman. Very few if any posters here will change their minds. It seems that JL has given up in this regard, and who can blame him. However, sometimes it feels good to put in writing ideas that come to us, and then post them somewhere in the internet galaxy, even if no one responds. I do this with my continuing interest in mathematics, exploring, then writing and programming elementary, fairly trivial material. It's the doing that counts. Jstan, in his wisdom, has stated we are what we do, to which I subscribe. If we stop doing - even trivial things we enjoy- we lose our perceived identities, which I suppose the meditators will judge as appropriate and necessary.
They may have a very practical point in some instances: to be locked into that perceived identity may have serious consequences in potentially dangerous activities like solo climbing.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
|
I haven't given up. But sometimes I find it necessary to do more of the work than talk about it. I'll have a few things to add some time around Christmas.
Happy Thanksgiving ya'all.
JL
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
|
The idea that understood as metaphors of the human psyche mythological symbols CAN be brought up to date and CAN communicate wisdom in conjunction with scientific thought and that the valid
Far and away the foremost leader in the exploration of the meaning of mythological symbols was Carl Jung. As Jung stated a century ago:
“My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.”[1]
So ,the above remains a general outline of the function and central nature of archetypal symbols and Jung's theory of the Collective Unconscious. He thought of this monopsychic unconscious as being universal; much like anatomical structures---your arm is unique and different from my arm and yet the general structure and function is the same. Jung in this way sought to ,as it were, import the methods of comparative morphology into psychological inquiry.
Jung often hinted at a possible genetic component operating as the indispensable foundations of collective archetypes, or mythological symbols.
I pointed out on another thread that the theory of the collective unconscious, while having tremendous formative influence during the early and mid-20th century (Joseph Campbell,et al)
nevertheless failed to be ,in any substantive way , advanced forward on the level of hard scientific inquiry.
I took this state of affairs as being more or less indicative of what I've long suspected: the collective unconscious only existed or exists as primarily a transient cultural form ; as a means of organizing and extending experience in the same way that any given technology functions. If a number of widely dispersed cultures seem to spontaneously evolve the "the hero archetype" independent of each other ,this does not necessarily mean that the hero narrative is therefore a fundamental constituent of the universal human psyche, or even that such a generalized unconscious psyche exists at all.
The hero narrative,for example, grew organically from an early hunterer/gatherer technology that accompanied a certain developmental phase in human cultural evolution --- and consequently has been somewhat discarded in modern times, like the spear .People no longer need the hero archetype as expressed in any kind of universalistic unconscious format. Today these distributed archetypes have been relegated to entertainment status because they still invoke a recognizing response from the general public---having long inhabited the tales of youth in literature and cinema.
Heroes,serpents, and Shangri-las no longer infest the dreamscapes of the human race as they once did--- nor have they morphed into radically varying and newer forms. There is no specific genetic component to archetypal forms or mythological symbols, per se. They are not,in and of themselves, the master key to the unlocking of transcendental truths about the human experience. They must be appreciated and seriously studied as signposts along the way.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
|
"To proscribe a need for believe in myth to 'complete' another's psyche is as ridiculous as it sounds."
Perhaps unintended, but I would have to agree...Ha.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
|
"I took this state of affairs as being more or less indicative of what I long suspected: the collective unconscious only existed or exists as primarily a transient cultural form ; as a means of organizing and extending experience in the same way that any given technology functions. If a number of widely dispersed cultures seem to spontaneously evolve the "the hero archetype" independent of each other ,this does not necessarily mean that the hero narrative is therefore a fundamental constituent of the universal human psyche, or even that such a generalized unconscious psyche exists at all."
I think this ignores the uniform nature of human anatomy and activity. I would never postulate that a generalized unconscious psyche exists except insofar as it is a function of the similarity and being of all humanity: each of us is born helpless and must be nurtured into at least adolescence, we become adults and seek to procreate, we seek to survive, we begin to loose our abilities, we reach old age and then we die. The similarity of experience over vast periods of time yields an undeniable syncrety in mythological thought as described by Jung. Human experience at its base transcends "transient cultural forms." Virtually all cultures recognize a notion of something beyond the forms of sensibility, something beyond death, a god. There is the ubiquitous nature of unusual births, sacred places... the question is why are these ideas so common and what do they do for the individual psyche?
"They are not,in and of themselves, the central key to the unlocking of transcendental truths about the human experience."
I think this just assumes too much. Central key? I don't know, but these myths have affected the lives of most of the human beings who've ever lived and who've held to them even in the face of death.
Why?
My own sense is that there is a wisdom in these myths that offers something science can never make clear or ultimately give us. In the final analysis a revelation of all possible knowledge through science leaves us with only our continued unreconciled being.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
|
Change "central key" to " master key" or better yet "skeleton key"
Time forces me to address your points later on.
A skeleton key (also known as a passingkey) is either a key that has been altered in such a way as to bypass the wards placed inside a warded lock, or a card ...
This is Ward...over and out...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2014 - 02:10pm PT
|
I pointed out on another thread that the theory of the collective unconscious, while having tremendous formative influence during the early and mid-20th century (Joseph Campbell,et al) nevertheless failed to be, in any substantive way, advanced forward on the level of hard scientific inquiry.
Explain what you mean by "substantive." And specifically what scientist failed in his/her "hard scientific inquiry" of the collective unconscious? In fact, what scientific inquiry has ever proven or defined what consciousness actually is, collective or otherwise?
By what empirical methods do you think Jung ever arrived at his theory about the collective unconscious? Were those methods "substantive" in your opinion?
How do you contrast Jung's collective unconscious to Platonic forms?
What aspect of consciousness, if any, do you consider to be "universal," or is consciousness itself - like archetypes, and other content - a cultural gizmo.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 09:36am PT
|
Go see "The Imitation Game," about Alan Turing, Britain’s Code-Breaking WWII Hero, long distance runner, and computer genius who's own country tried to “cure” him of homosexuality (a minor/weak part of the movie). Benedict Cumberbatch, as Turing, should get an academy nomination for his role. Well done.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 11:13am PT
|
...and consequently has been somewhat discarded in modern times, like the spear...
Jessica Ennis discarding a spear...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 11:26am PT
|
Turing has only achieved "hero" status relatively recently, and largely because his contributions to the mathematics of computation is central to many of the modern technological innovations that are central to our modern cultural experience (e.g. search algorithms on Google).
His very deep thoughts which are easily accessible (or apparently so) also help make him a popular figure, and that he applied this to the important code breaking work in WWII which was, arguably, the major technological contribution to the Allies winning that war.
The extent to which the code breaking aided in the war effort was unreported for a very long time. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, many of them the cultural affinity for recognizing valor, honor, courage and bravery in actual combat. Those were important, but the intelligence gained by breaking the code of the opponent was decisive. However, code breaking is considered a cheat... who couldn't win if you knew what move your opponent was going to make? Gentlemen do not read each other's mail.
To add to this repression, Turing repressed his very personal feelings, and had to at a cultural time when homosexuality was still considered illegal. That is hard to imagine today, but it happened.
I am not sure I consider him a "hero," he was an exceptional person who made a major contribution to the 20th century, both in helping to resolve the last major military conflict and in being one of the founders of modern computational mathematics.
It is a long over due popular recognition of his contributions. It is something that has been known for a long time in the science community.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 11:33am PT
|
Based solely on what I saw in the movie - which might be an unreliable source - Turing at least appeared heroic for the great resistance he faced and for the fact that he soldiered on.
War is more than hand to hand combat. It's also strategy, and code breaking is a standard and key aspect of intelligence gathering. Turing was apparently exceptinally gifted at it, and he is credited with shortening the war by as much as 18 months and saving millions of lives in the bargain. Sounds pretty heroic to me.
JL
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
|
The similarity of experience over vast periods of time yields an undeniable syncrety in mythological thought as described by Jung. Human experience at its base transcends "transient cultural forms."
To be clear here, Jung understood the cultural and historical manifestations of his archetypes,as described by Stevens:
Strictly speaking, Jungian archetypes refer to unclear underlying forms or the archetypes-as-such from which emerge images and motifs such as the mother, the child, the trickster and the flood amongst others. It is history, culture and personal context that shape these manifest representations giving them their specific content. These images and motifs are more precisely called archetypal images. However it is common for the term archetype to be used interchangeably to refer to both archetypes-as-such and archetypal images.[2]
I am saying that not only are the archetypes shaped by "history, culture, and personal context..." But as I indicated in my earlier post ,put simply, that is all they are shaped by. Jung himself understood that culture played an indispensible role in the manifestation of these archetypes. I disagree that the archetypes, or the collective unconscious ,represent essential structural forms superimposed a priori upon human experience; either by a genetic or a transcendental component.
It should come as no surprise that mythological constructions over the millennia would track those innate mainstays of human experience such as birth and death and developmental phases. It is quite another matter to suggest , as Jung often did, that the archetypes were an autonomous dynamic that through unconscious mechanisms displayed the function of ordering human life along predetermined courses. And further, that the archetypes might represent innate and elaborate transcendental motifs which expressed themselves through unconscious manifestations.
Jung was a very creative and brilliant scholar who was largely working in the dark. His period was the very earliest in psychology/psychiatry and lacked the empirical foundations of the depth that characterized the other sciences. Jung's era was one of theory alone---based upon very little experimentation or discovery. The leading theorists of the time were Jung and Freud and both sought to lay the seminal foundations of psychology with complex theories --based less upon clinical observation or experiments and more upon the intellectual and personal nature of the theorists themselves.
The influences evident in Freud and Jung's work were similar --- many western intellectuals during this period were generally captivated by the theories of Einstein and Darwin and the underlying discoveries within the sciences. A entire cosmos was revealed driven by hidden innate mechanisms and structures--- not accessible to the common senses.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Freud and Jung's theories would be of a 'gnostic' type. The human psyche in both theoretical frameworks was fundamentally explained by forces and structures operating behind a veil --- much like atoms and molecules and radiation. In the case of psychology at that time ,there was no instrumentation to detect the ego or the Id or the collective unconscious. The only instruments available on the frontier of psychology were Freud, Jung, and their colleagues.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
|
“I am saying that not only are the archetypes shaped by "history, culture, and personal context..." But as I indicated in my earlier post ,put simply, that is all they are shaped by.”
“It should come as no surprise that mythological constructions over the millennia would track those innate mainstays of human experience such as birth and death and developmental phases.”
These statements seem a bit contradictory. I don’t disagree that Jung’s “collective unconsciousness” as a “cloud” of human construction is problematic, however, the notion of similarities of experience yielding remarkable similarities in both myth and ritual still stands… and these can reasonably be called archetypes. These remarkable similarities should give rise to the question, why? Why the human proclivity to myth?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:33pm PT
|
Explain to me why you think those two statements are contradictory?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:34pm PT
|
There is a pretty fine documentary about Turing on netflix... check it out. Hard not to call him a hero after watching. I'm hardly a member of the science community but I've known about Turing since I don't know when. I think most have.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
|
In the sense that basic physical structure and what it is to be human in terms of experience are related to history and social context in the same way that myth is: separate in a sense.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:45pm PT
|
Look, I think we are at cross purposes here because I am involved in a critique of Jung's concepts of the collective unconscious/archetypes and how his theoretical framework has come to be known.
You have a personalized version of the general idea of 'archetypes' based upon your understanding. Which is fine, but a different thing.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
Yeah, I think that's correct. However, I think you could agree also that there's validity to the notion of the archetype, not necessarily in the Jungian sense but in the sense of a near universal similarity particularly in myth.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 12:55pm PT
|
Oh yeah , without question. As long as humans undergo common experience there will be expressions of commonality. Those expression from time to time may even be revelatory.
Thus 'one could as easily speak of the "collective arm" - meaning the basic pattern of bones and muscles which all human arms share in common'.[6]
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
|
Jung went off the rails when he made the collective unconscious mystical. It is difficult to be serious and accept that.
IMO, he was correct in a sociological and evolutionary sense. If he had stopped there, we would still be taking him seriously.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!