"When Myth Incarnates in the Waking World"
The Invocation of Magic and Myth
The following is intended to be a review of the general principles of mythorealism. The principles of mythorealism are to be examined from the viewpoint of previous thought on the subject of myth, as well as highlight the development of thought regarding the meaning of myth, and its invocation in various media. The discussion is intended to be an expose of the where, the how, and the why, of myth and of the tenets of Mythorealism.
The General Principles of Mythorealism:
1- There is a broad and in some respects unrecognized artistic tendency, operating in a variety of different media, the primary feature of which is the invocation of magic and myth- not merely the use of such themes as a story element, but the incarnation of a transcendent reality within the mundane sphere.
2- This tendency represents an unrealized but extremely powerful mystic impulse, an instinct common to all cultures and peoples, which is now seeking a new mode of expression in the modern world.
3- The nature of this expression is distinct from all previous modes of spirituality, because it draws freely from a common heritage of world culture and tradition, while laying claim to no particular doctrine or identity.
4- The personal experience of this transcendent reality, which may be referred to as mythic resonance, is among the most fundamental of human experiences, providing a rich source of inspiration and insight.
5- Reason and the scientific method are valid and essential ways of understanding the material world. However, no perfectly rational understanding of the realm of myth is either possible or desirable. Understanding in the mythic realm is essentially ineffable, and its expression necessarily involves both contradiction and ambiguity.
6- It is equally misguided either to take myth literally or to dismiss it as meaningless, the fallacies of fundamentalism and of skeptical materialism.
7- The images of the mythic realm are symbolic and not literal, but they cannot be reduced down to anything merely psychological or merely physical. Mythic symbols are allegorical of something more fundamental, providing access to essential truths.
8- The experience of the realm of myth is most transformative when it is met at the source, experienced as an ineffable mystery, and confronted directly. All second-hand interpretations (whether anthropological, historical or psychological) are a step away, useful only intellectually but not fundamentally.
9- Any specific myth contains a mythic problem, or in some cases a complex of mythic problems. The nature of a mythic problem is a profound mystery, the solution to which is a transcendent insight, a transformative seeing-beyond.
10- The insight that can be attained through the experience of myth is suggestive of an ethics, providing a doorway to human excellence in every facet of life.
The Invocation of Magic and Myth
Principle 1 of the general principles of Mythorealism speaks of “the incarnation of a transcendent reality in the mundane sphere.” Clearly this statement applies to all forms of art, visual art, music, dance, story-telling, plays, poetry, and other forms of literature. As I see it, the first and most important invocation of magic and myth is ourselves. We are the canvas, the word, the song, and the dance, giving rise to the transcendent reality in our own lives. For before we can embody the transcendent element in a work of art, we must have touched it directly ourselves, it is part of us, rising out of us, into whatever mode of expression we choose to give it.
In Joseph Campbell’s book, The Power of Myth, he states “the most common themes of myth deal not with the meaning of life, but the experience of being alive”. We all share in that experience, just as we all share in being alive. Principle 2 affirms this statement in saying that the process of mythic expression is common to all peoples and cultures. It is summed up in the definition applied by the philosopher Sallut, whom CS Thompson quotes, "myth is that which never was, but always is". Now what this really means is that the thing of which we speak is an essential reality common to all, and those expressions that highlight our similarities rather than our differences, amongst all peoples and cultures, are those touch it most directly.
I feel compelled to point out that Joseph Campbell did not adhere to the idea of a personal mythos. I tend to disagree with this. Through our own experience of being alive, I think we develop a mythos uniquely our own. One that is somehow fashioned from the universal elements of the mythic realm. This idea could be further expanded on in another post. Right now, we are dealing with the universal aspect of myth. So we will examine the principles from a more or less universal viewpoint.
The experience of “being alive” is common to all men of all times and places, and there are certain commonalities of experience that will be shared, whether you be a Wall Street hedge fund manager or a member of a tribe in the Amazon river basin. This is the power and the force of the transcendent reality, and the cause for the creation of myth. In the modern world, modern man has found new ways in which to give expression to it. Look at movies like the Matrix, or the Stars Wars saga. In movies like these you will find the legacy of giving expression to the mythic problem, i.e. that which requires resolution before the transcendent reality can be experienced, and the subsequent development of an ethos for living, by the wisdom gained through those experiences. .
When it comes to the essential reality, it must be that we can only use mythic expression to give it form at all. The ordinary, rational, thinking part of the brain does not touch the elusive, ineffable, essence of the transcendent reality. You just can’t think your way there. You can’t wrap your brain around it at all. In fact I dare say, the rational, analytical, and logical brain is not capable of perceiving it at all. The best that could be said of how it is grasped is through the intuitive faculty in man. This is why symbols are used to transmit spiritual ideas and higher wisdom from the mythic realm in all religions. The apprehension of the messages in symbols is a function of the right side of the brain, the intuitive, visual brain. The intellectual function, in particular the discriminative faculty, is what helps us to ground that reality on the material plane and is a function of the left side of the brain.
This is what CG Jung means when he says,
“myth is the primordial language natural to the psychic processes, and no intellectual formulation comes anywhere near the richness and the expressiveness of mythical imagery”.
We never stop giving expression to it, it’s always there, lurking just beneath surface. It’s a part of us, we can know it, but we cannot tell it, words fail. Hence the need to express “it” through myth. The mythorealist perspective holds that it is more than just “archetypes” of the collective consciousness, that CG Jung describes, or the "pathway to bliss" that Joseph Campbell describes.
The concept as developed by CS Thompson identifies it as "the spirit lurking behind stones and flesh". In mythorealist perspective, it "encompasses facets of reality which aren't ordinarily perceived and brings them into the waking world." It is the very essence of “being” and all that the concept implies.
The modern world is no exception to the expression of the transcendent reality. An expression more representative of our time would be through the media of film. Look at the movies mentioned earlier, like Stars Wars and The Matrix. Just who is this Morpheus character? Who is Neo? Why did Darth Vader turn to the Dark? What were the ultimate consequences of such? What challenges does Luke Skywalker face? One could spend hours rationally delineating all of the mythic problems that the protagonists in each of these stories face. But as we sit there in silence in the theatre, the film speaks to us through the intuitive faculty. Each person might get something a little different out of it at any given time. The transcendent reality is, as CS Thompson indicates “a terrible, and fascinating mystery” and I might add, its big, real BIG.
Now principles 3 deals with something I feel to be of great significance in mythorealism. There is no short sightedness here. The mythorealist perspective is one that is open to receive from all sources. The modern world is much smaller than that of our forbearers. If you lived in ancient Greece, your myths and stories are built up out of what’s been transmitted before you and the limitations of them are that they are confined to maybe one tradition only. We, of the modern world, are comparatively, at a decided advantage. The modern world affords us access to the mythic realm embodied in the various media around the world. We simply get a larger view than did those who preceded us. Mass publication, mass media, and the internet have all contributed to making readily available information on the cultural and religious traditions and iconography around the world.
Now to grapple with the idea of “mythic resonance”, mentioned in principle 4 is a challenge. A mythic work of art or literature may be first approached intellectually. This statement appears to contradict what CS Thompson has put forth regarding “mythic resonance”, and indeed, what I have already said myself. However, consider that the grasping of the 'idea' of a transcendent reality intellectually may be the first step for many. Many religious and spiritual traditions teach a “way”, a method, or a practice to be exercised in the spiritual pursuit of enlightenment, redemption, salvation, or whatever may be the goals of such. The first approach to the “way”, the method, and the practice is intellectual. One of the hallmarks of mythic stories, of which religious scripture would be included, is that they are often read and apprehended on several different levels. Our understanding of them often happens by degrees. At first, we may read a story and perceive only the story as a chronicle of events, something that happened. This is the intellectual approach. At another level, we may perceive something else about the story that is not told directly in the story. It is something that we “gained” from the story. This is the intuitive approach. This is what Joseph Campbell means when he says the "myth is infinite in its revelation". Maybe it’s a lesson, an understanding, an insight regarding the particular events that have been chronicled. This then is mythic resonance. It is essentially a right brain function. It’s not there in the story, but it is there for us to perceive if we can. An example would be as in the Baghavad Gita, when Krishna is with Arjuna before the battlefield he encourages Arujna to fight. Arjuna is having serious reservations about doing so. Krishna goes into an explanation of sorts to allay Arjuna’s concerns. He is telling Arjuna something but there is something else there unspoken. You don’t read on the page but suddenly it’s there! Aha! This now is mythic resonance, as I see it. First you approached the story from an intellectual standpoint, you are reading a story about Arjuna, now suddenly you are apprehending what the story is really about. Therein lies the difference. It is very subtle. It is the je ne sai quoi element in the story.
Early experiences with mythic element in a story or work of art may not result in “mythic resonance” at all. It may be that several approaches to the story may be required for “mythic resonance” to kick in, shall we say. Look at the art work of MC Escher. The mythic resonance in his art is maybe a little more obvious than some other artists. Dark and light patterns, tessellations of seemingly infinite expansion. In looking at it, something is coming through. These examples provide the closest approximation of mythic resonance that I can give. I think it works something like that.
We have seen, from the examples given, how mythic resonance works. In the principles of mythorealism, this is discussed in principle 5. The idea that understanding in the mythic realm is not rational. The word rational means to break up into parts, but you can’t grasp the full expression of the transcendent in parts. It must be whole. Mythic resonance is not intellectual process, it is intuitive in nature. It is in us to begin with, and we then embody it in our various art forms. When another individual approaches our art form, mythic resonance is what transmits the mythic element embodied in the work to the observer.
Principle 6 and 7 are something that needs addressing. Principle 6 states that it is misguided to take myth as literal, merely psychological, or physical. The myth that contains a real event is still mythic if it embodies those elements that are subject to mythic resonance. The mythic story in which a character is a real person, does not preclude the embodiment of the transformative feature in a myth. CS Thompson’s observation that myth has been described by Sallut as “that which never was, but always is”, refers to the elements of the story that are subject to mythic resonance, that which is transmitted to the reader or observer that is unspoken. It necessarily partakes of the observer, as much as of the artisan.
Principle 8 deals with the direct encounter with the transcendent reality after mythic resonance has worked its charm. It states that “the realm of myth is most transformative when it is met at the source, experienced as an ineffable mystery, and confronted directly”. This to me means there is no cerebral awakening. It refers to the fact that the whole experience is one of intuition rather than intellect, directly impacting the consciousness, through the participation of the right brain. Quite plainly, experienced consciously, without even thinking about it. The nature of this transmission of the ineffable and transcendent is transformative at the most deeply personal level. We have experienced something that has changed the way we look at the world.
In principle 9, we read that a mythic problem is embodied in myth. My earlier example of Krishna and Arjuna is a perfect example of this. Consider also the myth of Demeter and Persephone. Hades drags Persephone down to the underworld, he later makes a deal to allow her to be with Demeter half of the year and with him half of the year. One mythic problem is that of Demeter's angst and the resolution of it. Some would say this myth is about the changing of the seasons, the cyclic nature of time. Others may percevice the mythic problem and its resolution a different way. In fact, often a myth allows for multiple meanings and resolutions. There may be multiple mythic probelms for consideration. No wonder they can’t be so easily assimilated into the consciousness. They must be pondered, digested, and allowed to resonant with what we know of our own life experience. Then the left brain function goes to work in assimilating and ordering what has been transmitted.
We have a established a framework for the approach of the mythic realm. To grasp the meaning
of myth and all that they tell of the human experience is to employ mythic resonance. Principle 10 highlights the ultimate outcome of that process. In doing so we gain insight into our own human experience, the experience of being alive. As a result of all that we learn, we develop an ethics for living that embodies the ideal of what we understand of the human experience and how to live our lives. Now again, the left brain functions in sorting out and making sense, if you will, of what we have learned.
Of utmost importance in consideration of the general principles of mythorealism is how and where the concepts outlined differ from previous thought on the nature and meaning of myth. I must look to the most definitive source, Joseph Campbell, when seeking to delineate what is of significance in the mythorealist perspective. Joseph Campbell described myth as having four functions:
1) the mystical function-JC describes this function of myth as one that "opens the world to the dimension of mystery, to the realization of the mystery that underlies all forms.
2) the cosomological function-JC describes this as "the dimension with which science is concerned". The actual constructs of the universe as we perceive through the senses.
3) the sociological function-JC describes this as "supporting and validating a certain social order".
4) the pedagogical function-JC describes this as "how to live a human life under any circumstances".
Now when viewing the principles of mythorealism from the vantage point of that giant of myth and its descriptives, Joseph Campbell, we have the task of delineating what is "new" or significant about the principles of mythorealism. CS Thompson's ideas and development of a particular philosophy based on the principles he has presented, certainly draws on what has been presented by Campbell and other writers. It is necessary that it do so. The development of thought always draws on what has previously been said about a subject. Most importantly I think, CS Thompson's principles expand on the awareness of how myth works. The understanding of which can lead others to a greater awareness of how to approach myth. The concepts that I find to be significant are:
1) mythic resonance -what it is and how it develops. I do not find this concept, as I understand it in CS Thompson's writings on the subject, presented in Joseph Campbell's works. From an examination of JC's works, he never really touched on this concept. When JC tells us that "myths are inifinite in their revelation', he doesn't really describe for us how that works. He gives us no defining term to describe how myth works. The concept of mythic resonance does. An examination of Mircea Eliade's hierophanies concept is close to it. As I understand it deals with "the breakthrough of sacred into the World" and deals with religious scripture mainly. I would encourage an examination of his theories on eternal return, which are descriptive of the religious impulse in man, to see if there is any correspondence with mythic resonance.
2) mythic problem -I do not see the development of this concept to this degree in Joseph Campbell works in the same fashion that it is presented in CS Thompson's writings on the subject. CS Thompson defines the mythic problem as that which need to be resolved for a personal transformation to take place. It is true that JC did not see religious symbols literally as historically significant, but instead he saw them as symbols or metaphors for greater philosophical ideas. It is also true that he knew the myth did serve to transform the consciousness. This concept is closely related to that of the mythic problem. However, he does not identify it as such. The wringing out of the fundamental truths implied in a myth seems to be the essence of the resolution of the mythic problem in CS Thompson's philosophy.
3) The concept in principle 3 is of significance from the standpoint of what previous writers have said on the subject of myth. Here we find the idea presented that our access to an understanding of the essential reality, embodied in the mythic realm, is expanded because we are able to draw on sources outside of our own particular culture and tradition. I think this point is extremely relevant, since as we noted, the world is smaller to us than to our predecessors.
4) The concept presented in principle 8 is of importance, and one that JC may not have fully elucidated for us in our approach to myth. The idea that there is no cerebral awakening. The transformative element is confronted directly through the consciousness with no intermediate interpretations. An intellectual understanding falls short of delivering the full implications of the transcendent element being grasped.
In conclusion, I would say that the development of any philosophical viewpoint necessarily draws on, expands on, and adds to, the understanding of previous thought. I think there are definite features to CS Thompson's writing on this subject that do just that. I am not a scholar of the study of myth, but I have read much of Joseph Campbell, CG Jung, and Mircea Eliade and feel that there are components of this philosophical viewpoint that expand on the ideas and concepts presented by these writers on the subject. My own personal experiences are what attracted me to, and lend validation to, the concepts presented in CS Thompson's principles of mythorealism and the philosophy that has taken form from it tenets. It is my hope that an examination of this review, however unscholarly it may be, will somehow identify those features that are of greater significance in the philosophy as compared to the works of previous writers on the subject, and be an aid in the development of ideas on the subject.
The General Principles of Mythorealism:
1- There is a broad and in some respects unrecognized artistic tendency, operating in a variety of different media, the primary feature of which is the invocation of magic and myth- not merely the use of such themes as a story element, but the incarnation of a transcendent reality within the mundane sphere.
2- This tendency represents an unrealized but extremely powerful mystic impulse, an instinct common to all cultures and peoples, which is now seeking a new mode of expression in the modern world.
3- The nature of this expression is distinct from all previous modes of spirituality, because it draws freely from a common heritage of world culture and tradition, while laying claim to no particular doctrine or identity.
4- The personal experience of this transcendent reality, which may be referred to as mythic resonance, is among the most fundamental of human experiences, providing a rich source of inspiration and insight.
5- Reason and the scientific method are valid and essential ways of understanding the material world. However, no perfectly rational understanding of the realm of myth is either possible or desirable. Understanding in the mythic realm is essentially ineffable, and its expression necessarily involves both contradiction and ambiguity.
6- It is equally misguided either to take myth literally or to dismiss it as meaningless, the fallacies of fundamentalism and of skeptical materialism.
7- The images of the mythic realm are symbolic and not literal, but they cannot be reduced down to anything merely psychological or merely physical. Mythic symbols are allegorical of something more fundamental, providing access to essential truths.
8- The experience of the realm of myth is most transformative when it is met at the source, experienced as an ineffable mystery, and confronted directly. All second-hand interpretations (whether anthropological, historical or psychological) are a step away, useful only intellectually but not fundamentally.
9- Any specific myth contains a mythic problem, or in some cases a complex of mythic problems. The nature of a mythic problem is a profound mystery, the solution to which is a transcendent insight, a transformative seeing-beyond.
10- The insight that can be attained through the experience of myth is suggestive of an ethics, providing a doorway to human excellence in every facet of life.
The Invocation of Magic and Myth
Principle 1 of the general principles of Mythorealism speaks of “the incarnation of a transcendent reality in the mundane sphere.” Clearly this statement applies to all forms of art, visual art, music, dance, story-telling, plays, poetry, and other forms of literature. As I see it, the first and most important invocation of magic and myth is ourselves. We are the canvas, the word, the song, and the dance, giving rise to the transcendent reality in our own lives. For before we can embody the transcendent element in a work of art, we must have touched it directly ourselves, it is part of us, rising out of us, into whatever mode of expression we choose to give it.
In Joseph Campbell’s book, The Power of Myth, he states “the most common themes of myth deal not with the meaning of life, but the experience of being alive”. We all share in that experience, just as we all share in being alive. Principle 2 affirms this statement in saying that the process of mythic expression is common to all peoples and cultures. It is summed up in the definition applied by the philosopher Sallut, whom CS Thompson quotes, "myth is that which never was, but always is". Now what this really means is that the thing of which we speak is an essential reality common to all, and those expressions that highlight our similarities rather than our differences, amongst all peoples and cultures, are those touch it most directly.
I feel compelled to point out that Joseph Campbell did not adhere to the idea of a personal mythos. I tend to disagree with this. Through our own experience of being alive, I think we develop a mythos uniquely our own. One that is somehow fashioned from the universal elements of the mythic realm. This idea could be further expanded on in another post. Right now, we are dealing with the universal aspect of myth. So we will examine the principles from a more or less universal viewpoint.
The experience of “being alive” is common to all men of all times and places, and there are certain commonalities of experience that will be shared, whether you be a Wall Street hedge fund manager or a member of a tribe in the Amazon river basin. This is the power and the force of the transcendent reality, and the cause for the creation of myth. In the modern world, modern man has found new ways in which to give expression to it. Look at movies like the Matrix, or the Stars Wars saga. In movies like these you will find the legacy of giving expression to the mythic problem, i.e. that which requires resolution before the transcendent reality can be experienced, and the subsequent development of an ethos for living, by the wisdom gained through those experiences. .
When it comes to the essential reality, it must be that we can only use mythic expression to give it form at all. The ordinary, rational, thinking part of the brain does not touch the elusive, ineffable, essence of the transcendent reality. You just can’t think your way there. You can’t wrap your brain around it at all. In fact I dare say, the rational, analytical, and logical brain is not capable of perceiving it at all. The best that could be said of how it is grasped is through the intuitive faculty in man. This is why symbols are used to transmit spiritual ideas and higher wisdom from the mythic realm in all religions. The apprehension of the messages in symbols is a function of the right side of the brain, the intuitive, visual brain. The intellectual function, in particular the discriminative faculty, is what helps us to ground that reality on the material plane and is a function of the left side of the brain.
This is what CG Jung means when he says,
“myth is the primordial language natural to the psychic processes, and no intellectual formulation comes anywhere near the richness and the expressiveness of mythical imagery”.
We never stop giving expression to it, it’s always there, lurking just beneath surface. It’s a part of us, we can know it, but we cannot tell it, words fail. Hence the need to express “it” through myth. The mythorealist perspective holds that it is more than just “archetypes” of the collective consciousness, that CG Jung describes, or the "pathway to bliss" that Joseph Campbell describes.
The concept as developed by CS Thompson identifies it as "the spirit lurking behind stones and flesh". In mythorealist perspective, it "encompasses facets of reality which aren't ordinarily perceived and brings them into the waking world." It is the very essence of “being” and all that the concept implies.
The modern world is no exception to the expression of the transcendent reality. An expression more representative of our time would be through the media of film. Look at the movies mentioned earlier, like Stars Wars and The Matrix. Just who is this Morpheus character? Who is Neo? Why did Darth Vader turn to the Dark? What were the ultimate consequences of such? What challenges does Luke Skywalker face? One could spend hours rationally delineating all of the mythic problems that the protagonists in each of these stories face. But as we sit there in silence in the theatre, the film speaks to us through the intuitive faculty. Each person might get something a little different out of it at any given time. The transcendent reality is, as CS Thompson indicates “a terrible, and fascinating mystery” and I might add, its big, real BIG.
Now principles 3 deals with something I feel to be of great significance in mythorealism. There is no short sightedness here. The mythorealist perspective is one that is open to receive from all sources. The modern world is much smaller than that of our forbearers. If you lived in ancient Greece, your myths and stories are built up out of what’s been transmitted before you and the limitations of them are that they are confined to maybe one tradition only. We, of the modern world, are comparatively, at a decided advantage. The modern world affords us access to the mythic realm embodied in the various media around the world. We simply get a larger view than did those who preceded us. Mass publication, mass media, and the internet have all contributed to making readily available information on the cultural and religious traditions and iconography around the world.
Now to grapple with the idea of “mythic resonance”, mentioned in principle 4 is a challenge. A mythic work of art or literature may be first approached intellectually. This statement appears to contradict what CS Thompson has put forth regarding “mythic resonance”, and indeed, what I have already said myself. However, consider that the grasping of the 'idea' of a transcendent reality intellectually may be the first step for many. Many religious and spiritual traditions teach a “way”, a method, or a practice to be exercised in the spiritual pursuit of enlightenment, redemption, salvation, or whatever may be the goals of such. The first approach to the “way”, the method, and the practice is intellectual. One of the hallmarks of mythic stories, of which religious scripture would be included, is that they are often read and apprehended on several different levels. Our understanding of them often happens by degrees. At first, we may read a story and perceive only the story as a chronicle of events, something that happened. This is the intellectual approach. At another level, we may perceive something else about the story that is not told directly in the story. It is something that we “gained” from the story. This is the intuitive approach. This is what Joseph Campbell means when he says the "myth is infinite in its revelation". Maybe it’s a lesson, an understanding, an insight regarding the particular events that have been chronicled. This then is mythic resonance. It is essentially a right brain function. It’s not there in the story, but it is there for us to perceive if we can. An example would be as in the Baghavad Gita, when Krishna is with Arjuna before the battlefield he encourages Arujna to fight. Arjuna is having serious reservations about doing so. Krishna goes into an explanation of sorts to allay Arjuna’s concerns. He is telling Arjuna something but there is something else there unspoken. You don’t read on the page but suddenly it’s there! Aha! This now is mythic resonance, as I see it. First you approached the story from an intellectual standpoint, you are reading a story about Arjuna, now suddenly you are apprehending what the story is really about. Therein lies the difference. It is very subtle. It is the je ne sai quoi element in the story.
Early experiences with mythic element in a story or work of art may not result in “mythic resonance” at all. It may be that several approaches to the story may be required for “mythic resonance” to kick in, shall we say. Look at the art work of MC Escher. The mythic resonance in his art is maybe a little more obvious than some other artists. Dark and light patterns, tessellations of seemingly infinite expansion. In looking at it, something is coming through. These examples provide the closest approximation of mythic resonance that I can give. I think it works something like that.
We have seen, from the examples given, how mythic resonance works. In the principles of mythorealism, this is discussed in principle 5. The idea that understanding in the mythic realm is not rational. The word rational means to break up into parts, but you can’t grasp the full expression of the transcendent in parts. It must be whole. Mythic resonance is not intellectual process, it is intuitive in nature. It is in us to begin with, and we then embody it in our various art forms. When another individual approaches our art form, mythic resonance is what transmits the mythic element embodied in the work to the observer.
Principle 6 and 7 are something that needs addressing. Principle 6 states that it is misguided to take myth as literal, merely psychological, or physical. The myth that contains a real event is still mythic if it embodies those elements that are subject to mythic resonance. The mythic story in which a character is a real person, does not preclude the embodiment of the transformative feature in a myth. CS Thompson’s observation that myth has been described by Sallut as “that which never was, but always is”, refers to the elements of the story that are subject to mythic resonance, that which is transmitted to the reader or observer that is unspoken. It necessarily partakes of the observer, as much as of the artisan.
Principle 8 deals with the direct encounter with the transcendent reality after mythic resonance has worked its charm. It states that “the realm of myth is most transformative when it is met at the source, experienced as an ineffable mystery, and confronted directly”. This to me means there is no cerebral awakening. It refers to the fact that the whole experience is one of intuition rather than intellect, directly impacting the consciousness, through the participation of the right brain. Quite plainly, experienced consciously, without even thinking about it. The nature of this transmission of the ineffable and transcendent is transformative at the most deeply personal level. We have experienced something that has changed the way we look at the world.
In principle 9, we read that a mythic problem is embodied in myth. My earlier example of Krishna and Arjuna is a perfect example of this. Consider also the myth of Demeter and Persephone. Hades drags Persephone down to the underworld, he later makes a deal to allow her to be with Demeter half of the year and with him half of the year. One mythic problem is that of Demeter's angst and the resolution of it. Some would say this myth is about the changing of the seasons, the cyclic nature of time. Others may percevice the mythic problem and its resolution a different way. In fact, often a myth allows for multiple meanings and resolutions. There may be multiple mythic probelms for consideration. No wonder they can’t be so easily assimilated into the consciousness. They must be pondered, digested, and allowed to resonant with what we know of our own life experience. Then the left brain function goes to work in assimilating and ordering what has been transmitted.
We have a established a framework for the approach of the mythic realm. To grasp the meaning
of myth and all that they tell of the human experience is to employ mythic resonance. Principle 10 highlights the ultimate outcome of that process. In doing so we gain insight into our own human experience, the experience of being alive. As a result of all that we learn, we develop an ethics for living that embodies the ideal of what we understand of the human experience and how to live our lives. Now again, the left brain functions in sorting out and making sense, if you will, of what we have learned.
Of utmost importance in consideration of the general principles of mythorealism is how and where the concepts outlined differ from previous thought on the nature and meaning of myth. I must look to the most definitive source, Joseph Campbell, when seeking to delineate what is of significance in the mythorealist perspective. Joseph Campbell described myth as having four functions:
1) the mystical function-JC describes this function of myth as one that "opens the world to the dimension of mystery, to the realization of the mystery that underlies all forms.
2) the cosomological function-JC describes this as "the dimension with which science is concerned". The actual constructs of the universe as we perceive through the senses.
3) the sociological function-JC describes this as "supporting and validating a certain social order".
4) the pedagogical function-JC describes this as "how to live a human life under any circumstances".
Now when viewing the principles of mythorealism from the vantage point of that giant of myth and its descriptives, Joseph Campbell, we have the task of delineating what is "new" or significant about the principles of mythorealism. CS Thompson's ideas and development of a particular philosophy based on the principles he has presented, certainly draws on what has been presented by Campbell and other writers. It is necessary that it do so. The development of thought always draws on what has previously been said about a subject. Most importantly I think, CS Thompson's principles expand on the awareness of how myth works. The understanding of which can lead others to a greater awareness of how to approach myth. The concepts that I find to be significant are:
1) mythic resonance -what it is and how it develops. I do not find this concept, as I understand it in CS Thompson's writings on the subject, presented in Joseph Campbell's works. From an examination of JC's works, he never really touched on this concept. When JC tells us that "myths are inifinite in their revelation', he doesn't really describe for us how that works. He gives us no defining term to describe how myth works. The concept of mythic resonance does. An examination of Mircea Eliade's hierophanies concept is close to it. As I understand it deals with "the breakthrough of sacred into the World" and deals with religious scripture mainly. I would encourage an examination of his theories on eternal return, which are descriptive of the religious impulse in man, to see if there is any correspondence with mythic resonance.
2) mythic problem -I do not see the development of this concept to this degree in Joseph Campbell works in the same fashion that it is presented in CS Thompson's writings on the subject. CS Thompson defines the mythic problem as that which need to be resolved for a personal transformation to take place. It is true that JC did not see religious symbols literally as historically significant, but instead he saw them as symbols or metaphors for greater philosophical ideas. It is also true that he knew the myth did serve to transform the consciousness. This concept is closely related to that of the mythic problem. However, he does not identify it as such. The wringing out of the fundamental truths implied in a myth seems to be the essence of the resolution of the mythic problem in CS Thompson's philosophy.
3) The concept in principle 3 is of significance from the standpoint of what previous writers have said on the subject of myth. Here we find the idea presented that our access to an understanding of the essential reality, embodied in the mythic realm, is expanded because we are able to draw on sources outside of our own particular culture and tradition. I think this point is extremely relevant, since as we noted, the world is smaller to us than to our predecessors.
4) The concept presented in principle 8 is of importance, and one that JC may not have fully elucidated for us in our approach to myth. The idea that there is no cerebral awakening. The transformative element is confronted directly through the consciousness with no intermediate interpretations. An intellectual understanding falls short of delivering the full implications of the transcendent element being grasped.
In conclusion, I would say that the development of any philosophical viewpoint necessarily draws on, expands on, and adds to, the understanding of previous thought. I think there are definite features to CS Thompson's writing on this subject that do just that. I am not a scholar of the study of myth, but I have read much of Joseph Campbell, CG Jung, and Mircea Eliade and feel that there are components of this philosophical viewpoint that expand on the ideas and concepts presented by these writers on the subject. My own personal experiences are what attracted me to, and lend validation to, the concepts presented in CS Thompson's principles of mythorealism and the philosophy that has taken form from it tenets. It is my hope that an examination of this review, however unscholarly it may be, will somehow identify those features that are of greater significance in the philosophy as compared to the works of previous writers on the subject, and be an aid in the development of ideas on the subject.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by CS Thompson on -
Thank you Alchemistra, this is a wonderful and thoughtful piece of work, and a worthy addition to the Mythorealist project. I would encourage you to think about contributing your own ideas to Mythorealism as well. A few points:
-"the spirit lurking behind stones and flesh" is from the writings of Lani Thompson, not my own work- I was only quoting the phrase.
-you are quite right in identifying "mythic resonance" (which can also be thought of as the gnosis of a particular myth) and the "mythic problem" as central concepts. Mythorealist mystical practice depends on these two points.
- as one gets deeper into Mythorealist philosophy, there is actually a pretty heavy intellectual aspect. Relationship Theory can get as cerebral as any other epistemological/metaphysical system. It always remains the case, however, that "there can be no cerebral awakening." Intellectual aspects are always secondary to direct mystical insight. (Indeed, the methods of logic used in Relationship Theory are themselves derived from vision experiences.)
Thanks again, and I look forward to seeing more!
-CS
-
Permalink Reply by alchemistra on -
Thank you, CS, for your kind words. It has been my good pleasure to read and review the General Principles of Mythorealism. After my original post, I went back and added a few comments, particularly ideas dealing with right and left brain activity in the approach to the mythic element. It's interesting that you should mention the importance of the intellectual aspect in Relationship theory, as this is something I have been thinking about lately. Mainly ideas about the development of an ethics for living that is central to the Mythorealist perspective. I was trying to touch on how insights that we receive from the mythic realm become grounded, through our rational understanding of how to apply what we have learned on the material plane.
-
Permalink Reply by StevenErnest on -
Alchemistra, you've really given CS Thompson's ideas some thought. However, in #1 when you say re Joseph Campbell that, "He gives us no defining term to describe how myth works." I don't know what you mean by "term," but Campbell certainly described the process of how myth works; that only accounts for something like 60 percent of his writings.
-
Permalink Reply by alchemistra on
-
What I was going for here was specifically related to the term mythic resonance. The term I think is one that could be used in a much broader context, (ie. the mythic element embodied in any work of art; not just mythological stories, but also visual art, like drawings or dance) than the descriptives Joe Campbell gives us of how myth works, but at the same time, the actual meaning of what is revealed by it's function is indeed what JC proposes concerning mythological stories.
To quote from JC's book, Pathways to Bliss:
"These symbols stem from the psyche; they speak from and to the spirit. And they are in fact the vehicles of communication between the deeper depths of our spiritual life and this relatively thin layer of consciousness by which we govern our daylight existences."
This is as close to the concept as anything of JC's that I have read. The general idea is that when mythic resonance operates something about the transcendent reality has been transmitted; what has been transmitted is part of the ultimate truth about the great mystery of existence.
From JC's The Power of Myth:
Now, eternity is beyond all categories of thought. We want to think about God. God is a thought. God is a name. God is an idea. But its reference is to something that transcends all thinking.
and
"...transcendent means to go past duality."
In my mind, mythic resonance is a term that necessarily would include reference to the intuitive capacity (right-brain activity) of the brain, not thinking (left-brain activity), but apprehending something through the intuitive faculty of the brain.
Therefore, mythic resonance is a newly-coined term to describe what is taking place, the transfer if you will of the part of the transcendent reality that has now been grasped by the consciousness.
I tried to expand on how the brain interfaces with the process in saying:
This then is mythic resonance. It is essentially a right brain function (ie intuitive faculty). It’s not there in the story, but it is there for us to perceive if we can.
You don’t read on the page but suddenly it’s there! Aha! This now is mythic resonance, as I see it. First you approached the story from an intellectual standpoint, you are reading a story about Arjuna, now suddenly you are apprehending what the story is really about. Therein lies the difference. It is very subtle. It is the je ne sai quoi element in the story.
My meaning is that mythic resonance is a newly-coined term term to describe how the je ne sai quoi element ( in any work of art) is grasped.
That is why I say JC never applied a term to describe the transference of the transcendent reality to the consciousness.
He understood that this is what was taking place as evidenced by his writings, but he did not define it with a term.
As a new term, mythic resonance has applicability to much more than mythological stories. It also functions when looking at visual art and I used MC Escher's art work to illustrate it.
-
Permalink Reply by CS Thompson on
-
Yes, mythic resonance can also be applied to visual art, to movies, to music- any experience in which an artistic work suddenly leads to a direct apprehension of a transcendent reality.
About
© 2009 Created by CS Thompson on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
