Welcome to my blog on mythology, psychology and culture in the 21st century. I am a student and aficionado of these subjects, especially as they pertain to the writings of C.G. Jung, James Hillman, and Joseph Campbell. In some small way I hope through these blog posts to show how ”the power of myth” and of the psyche or soul as understood by these and other seminal thinkers is operating right here and now in current events. (Arguably, it is psychological and/or mythological energies which make up the electrical “current” behind so-called “current events.”)
If you have a moment, let me know what you think about my site. Also, if there’s a topic — “current” or otherwise — that you’d like me to consider blogging on, just email me at chris@mythfire.com. Thanks for visiting.
The current behind so-called current events. Are U kidding?
Ur recent posts suggest that U are not — and that U’re trying Ur best to alienate the critical rationalists among Ur readership.
The two most recent TIME magazine cover stories totally capture the paradoxes that U write about:
1. Men are pigs, with a thin veneer of civilization overlaid. ( Why they think it’s only true of powerful men is beyond me).
2. Irrational optimism is essential to life. ( Therefore it’s rational?)
Maybe U can solve these riddles next.
Hey “U”: the tone I try to strike throughout my blog posts, including the last one on Hawking & Heaven with its reference to “critical rationalism,” is one commensurate with Mythfire‘s general aim: balanced discourse. So, logic or rationality or head balanced with and against the evidence of the non-rational, the intuitive, emotions and feelings, the heart and the body. The outer world balanced with the inner world. Certainly, in the Hawking post I strove if anything to not alienate the “critical rationalists” among my readership. Alienation is pretty much the opposite aim to what I was trying to achieve.
I’m not sure I fully understand your comment regarding “paradoxes” in my posts and the recent Time articles (which I admittedly have not yet read). Care to shed further light on your gist?
Also, if your comments/critique concerns a particular post, i.e. “critical rationalism” in my Hawking post, consider commenting directly on that post’s page by clicking on the “leave a comment” link at the very end of the post. That way other readers can read the comment and chime in.
Thanks in advance,
– Mythfire/Chris
Call it what you will … rational vs. non-rational, head vs. heart, dream life vs concrete reality, nature vs. nurture, civilization vs. baser instincts, yin vs. yang … the balanced discourse you aim for, presumably leading to enlightenment all around, is laudable. These opposing forces, however, formerly alluded to as paradoxical, simply don’t make good bedfellows.
What really seems most problematic in your “treatment” ( stemming from Jung , Schweitzer, et al) is that psychological and social phenomena are considered facts and “true” as such. No doubt dreams, synchronicity, life after death, and religion (…) exist in the “life of the mind” — also in a broader social context–, but are they therefore true? Going a step further, these phenomena also, no doubt, have had and continue to have an impact on what it means to be human (understatement), therefore deserving of study and understanding. Equating them with truth, however, seems to be a huge logical leap .
It is very difficult to simply address complex questions such as “what is truth?” Each blog post thus far, including the one posted today, to a certain degree is concerned with this basic human need to know “the truth.” In keeping with your comment, Jung frequently referred to the human psyche as “the objective psyche” because, just as with objects in outer space, objects or phenomena in inner space, i.e. in our minds, also operate according to discernible laws that make themselves known to the empirically and thus scientifically-minded psychologist. Some of these ways have already been discussed in these Mythfire posts.
It is also only through our mind, or psyche, that we identify and comprehend the “truth” of the universe outside of us. Hypotheses regarding how the universe operates also reveal a lot about how the mind or psyche operates. As within, so without. As above, so below. That will have to do for the moment. Stay tuned for more and keep the comments coming.
Where, oh where, did psychologists ever get their reputation for fixation on sexuality and sexual images? Copulative conjunctions? Displacement of the womb? Of course the infamous phallic symbol? The copulative conjunctions and displacement of the womb – taken from your recent posts – appear to be rather facile metaphors for inclusivity and creativity, respectively. The fecundity of metaphors (there I go!) – vessels, containers, wombs – is also overdone. They aren’t particularly instructive beyond a very superficial level. Mixing them doesn’t help matters.
BTW – Ur “leave a comment” links seem to have disappeared.
You left out my blog post on “Royal Marriage.” I suppose you find the “metaphor” of marriage “superficial” as well?
. Or all my posts from last year on attempting a balance between feeling and thinking? I grant that the ideas expressed, i.e. the ideas of balance and complementariness, are basic ones and that in an attempt to strike this balance some (if not most) of my posts disproportionately emphasize one of the two poles over the other. It is, I also grant, challenging to write an accessible blog in terms of length and subject matter that is satisfyingly representative of “depth” psychology and not at risk of superficiality. Perhaps to a certain degree we are also seeing here the yawning chasm between lived experience and our attempts to communicate the same in language.
My own “metaphor” for my approach to these posts is yet another “fecund” one, though less sexual. It is one of planting seeds, sowing oats (Darn! There I go again!), so that each post has an idea, quote, and/or book title that could potentially take root in the reader. That may be the best I can hope for and if it doesn’t succeed with any given person there are a myriad of reasons why that might be the case. It could be a problem with the planter, the planter’s seeds, unreceptive ground/soil, or a combination of all three. Let’s also not forget the weather. Oh no – yet more facile metaphors?!!?
Perhaps you’ve given me an idea for a future blog post: “The Facility of Metaphors.” Hmm… I’ll have to think on that.
In the meantime, you should be able to leave a comment by going to the end of any given post, past any footnotes, to the tags. At the end of the tags you should see “Leave a Comment.” Click on that and go to work. Thanks again, in advance.
–Chris
I read a few of your blogs and I resonate with much of it. In terms of the Harry Potter stuff… I experienced some vicarious mourning over my own losses this year as I re-read the series before the release of Deathly Hallows II. In terms of the play idea, I wonder that Harry’s quidditch playing often ended in near death experiences. His play was perhaps part of his preparation for accepting his fate and all that happened on the way.
Monica — thanks for the insights. I will keep them in mind as I keep working the Potter material. Did you find re-reading the books to provide healing on some level in light of your recent losses?
Are you a student at Pacifica? Your blog seems very much in line with their teachings.
Just answered my own question when I found your blog article on the JCF page. I’m applying to the phd program for next fall. Looking forward to it!
Casswoman, sorry for the long delay in replying. Best of luck with your Pacifica application. I have found the Myth/Depth Psych. program very fulfilling and worthwhile.
Very nice website, would be wonderful if there was an RSS support as well.