Help
Sign In
donald kalsched
July 2009 
Myth, Fairy Tale, and Psyche in Pan's Labyrinth
Julian
Well, it's finally out on video and I thought it would be a good time to watch Pan's Labyrinth again and offer up the second part of my review as promised at the beginning of the year!
Go here to see my more conventional review of the movie that preceeded this piece.
Introduction
I want to talk about the basic mythic structure of Pan's Labyrinth and then relate it to Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey as well as Jungian analyst Donald Kalsched's Self Care System from his book The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of The Personal Spirit.
As I alluded to in my initial review, the movie is a great entry point into discussing fairy tales like Rapunzel, myths like Eros and Psyche and other movies like The Piano, Fearless, Jacob's Ladder, The Cell, and The Fountain. It also provides an intuitive window into the myth-making function of the psyche, especially with reference to Kalsched's assertion that "When human resources are unavailable, archetypal resources will present themselves."
To start, let's look at our protagonist's name - Ofelia. Ophelia is a Shakespearean character associated with madness. She goes mad because her father has been killed by her beloved, who himself is losing his mind as his world falls apart after the unjust death of his father (whose ghost haunts him) and his mother's marriage to his uncle. In Hamlet, Ophelia is an innocent who is overcome by the trauma of circumstances beyond her control and perhaps has what we might call a sane response to an insane situation - she loses touch with an unbearable reality.
The Call and The Threshold
As the film begins we find our heroine at a crossroads, she is entering the realm of our fascist villain, Captain Vidal. Ofelia's mother has in effect sold her soul to this evil man in order to try and win survival for herself, her daughter and the unborn son in her belly. It is later alluded to that the Captain may have had something to do with the death of Ofelia's father.
This is classic fairy tale stuff - there once was a young girl whose father was dead, her mother had married an evil king who cared only about the baby prince she carried in her womb and who was at war with the townspeople who were rebelling against his rule.
Next comes the "call to adventure" and the beginning of the bifurcation of reality into the ordinary realm and the mythic realm when Ofelia "crosses the threshold."
Having stopped on the way into the realm of the evil king Vidal, Ofelia finds a a rock that bears a carved eye. Just off the road she finds the primitive carved face that the stone eye fits into. On returning the eye to it's rightful place, the journey is set in motion and the messenger that will call her into the adventure appears, first as an insect and then later - molding itself to fit her imagination - as a fairy.
It will be the fairy/insect/messenger that guides her to cross the threshold into the nearby abandoned stone labyrinth where she meets the Pan character - technically a Faun. He is a trickster and carries both creative and destructive energies. Part of Ofelia's journey will have to do with learning not only to disobey the external forces of power that seek to control her, but also the powerful mediator of this inner world. We are in the psyche now, and nothing is black and white....
We have the allusion with the Faun here to an ancient knowledge, instinctive, undifferentiated, of the earth, pagan, magical - an antidote to the cruel soul-less world she has entered in the ordinary realm of external reality. The fascists represent a dis-connection from our natural goodness and love in the name of perverted masculine power, the rebels in the woods carry the sense of noble resistance, integrity, humanity and connection to the natural world.
Ofelia is placed in an unbearable situation. Her mother is sick and has surrendered to the rule of the evil king. Her father is dead. Human resources are not available, and so archetypal resources appear. Her one saving grace in the external world is Mercedes, the unbroken housekeeper who is in cahoots with the rebels, but is initially completely powerless to help Ofelia.
On crossing the threshold into the mythic realm, Ofelia is told by the Faun that she is really a long-lost princess and that if she can perform three tasks she will reign again. So begins the next stage of our heroine's mythic journey.
The Faun gives Ofelia a book with blank pages that will tell her what to do when the time is right. Ofelia's unconscious is the author of the unfolding inner story and it will project onto the blank pages what her conscious self (or ego) needs to become aware of....
The Tasks
This is a video about the monsters Ofelia meets on her tasks:
The first task takes Ofelia into the roots of a dead fig tree, deep into the bug-infested mud and slime to find the huge toad that has sapped the tree's life force. She has three magical stones that she must get the toad to swallow in order to somehow get the key that is hidden in it's belly. In order to enter the tree and cross the threshold into a confrontation with the primitive reptile Ofelia takes off the beautiful new dress and bow for her hair that her mother has made for her to wear as she is presented that night to the local high society of power at dinner with the Captain. The clothing, representing the persona that her mother wants her to present will of course be muddied and tattered by the time she returns - too late for the dinner at which her mother is facing her reptilian host and his toadies.
The Toad is a direct reference to both the classic fairy tale of the princess whose golden ball is rescued from the bottom of the pond by the frog (on condition that she take him with her to the castle, let him sit beside her at table, eat from her plate and sleep on her pillow with her at night,) as well as the mythic serpents and dragons that carry the slimy, slithery, cold-hearted deadly shadow energies that must be faced and worked with if we are to be initiated psychologically.
Ofelia faces the Toad saying - I am Princess Moana and I am not afraid of you! She tricks him into swallowing the magical stones by holding them with a huge bug in her hand for him to grab by extending out his long sticky tongue. Once the stones are ingested the Toad practically turns inside out - vomiting a giant yellow ball of slime that contains dead and still crawling bugs as well as the key she is seeking.
In the belly of the beast. In the darkness of mud and slime and insects, in the roots of the tree that has been killed by this inhabitant, in the confrontation with what disgusts us - we find the key to self-knowledge, freedom, the return of life to the tree (in this case with a Pan-like horned shape) and entry to the next stage of our journey.
Ofelia's next task involves entering a less slimy realm - this time by using magical chalk to draw a doorway - and confronting a less primitive, but more monstrous creature. In this realm we find ourselves in hallway surrounded by arches and with chequered stone floors - around the corner we enter the banquet hall covered in food, at which sits the horrific blind humanoid Monster. Paintings on the wall depict this monster as a baby-killer and eater and we see an ominous pile of baby/children's shoes in the corner of the room.
Ofelia's must use the key from the belly of the Toad to open one of three small doorways in the wall behind the Monster and retrieve what lies within. She has strict instructions not to eat anything from the table. On the table in front of the Monster is a plate bearing two eyeballs. he has no eyes, two small holes in his otherwise featureless face that are either nostrils or empty eye sockets, a mouth and skin that hangs from his body as if he had once been very fat but had since lost a lot of weight. It's hands rest beside the plate, fingers coming to grotesque sharp points.
The Faun's three fairies accompany Ofelia on this task and she has instructions to do what they say, but Ofelia correctly trusts her own intuition/impulse and opens a different door with the key than the one the fairies point out to her, and retrieves a beautiful ceremonial dagger.
Now, confident in her own impulses, Ofelia decides the allure of the grapes on the table is too much to resist and, swatting the protesting fairies away like flies, eats two grapes. This wakes up the monster, who turns his hands palm up to reveal eye sockets that he inserts the eyes from his plate into and then holds his hands up to his head to take a look around. It is awake. It is hungry.
The Monster eats two of the fairies on it's bloody-mothed way toward our heroine. Interestingly, because the eyes are in the hands, it cannot see while it is holding onto what it is eating...and ultimately ofelia escapes by the skin of her teeth.
This scene is by far the most disturbing, brilliant and cryptic of the entire film. It took a while, but some of the implied meanings gradually coalesced for me:
Ofelia's greed gets the better of her and she disobeys the instruction not to eat. The Monster slumbers until she eats - but when she does it comes to eat her.
If we are in the inner world of the mythic psyche, then, as in dreams, the Monster is a part of her. The Monster perhaps represents Ofelia's own blind devouring greed, the shadow side of the libidinal impulse. When she succumbs, it wakes up - or rather it is already waking up in her when she decides to eat from it's table - and then it comes to eat her! But it is blind or unconscious, or powerless over the world around it while it is in the act of voracious devouring.
Here we see an allusion to the Bluebeard story in which a young girl is kidnapped by a Pirate and told that she can look in any of th rooms she wants to while he is away, but the room that this key unlocks is off limits. Of course this is the one room she absolutely has to go into and when she does she finds that it contains a giant cauldron filled with blood and chopped up bodies. Of course this gets her in trouble with the Pirate, but it also let's her know how dire is her situation! This will lead to her being able to respond to it creatively and resourcefully.
We are in the classic mythic territory of the struggle between the persona reality of social conditioning and the maturity that is won through learning to be conscious of the primal archetypal forces and emotional energies within us instead of repressing and denying them as the social order (in this case an overtly fascist one) demands.
Key Story Points
Next comes a torture scene that reminds us of the closeness of the 1940's of Spain to our current times, as well as two very telling aspects of the external story that are pivotal:
1) Following the Faun's advice, Ofelia has put a very baby-like magical mandrake root into a bowl of milk and fed it with two drops of blood from her fingertip - this magical fetish has been placed under her mother's bed to help ensure her recovery from her most recent rough patch in the pregnancy. The Captain finds this putrefying mixture and accepts the mother Carmen's request that she be allowed to deal with it. In this scene Carmen yells at Ofelia - There is no magic, not for you not for me, as she throws the mandrake root on the fire and it writhes and screams like a baby. She goes into labor and dies, leaving the Captain a son. We have echoes here too of Mercedes response to Ofelia that she used to believe in a great many things when she was a girl that she no longer believes in. The trinity of Mercedes, Carmen and Ofelia carry the struggle to be in a real world that is harsh and oppressive. We are reminded that the mythic world is not literally real, Ofelia is not a princess and the real world situation is dire. We are not in Disney territory here.
2) The good Dr. Ferreiro euthanizes the tortured stuttering rebel to put him out of his misery and is executed by Captain Vidal for his trouble. Before that happens he says to Vidal - I cannot obey just like that, just because you tell me to - that is only for men like you to do - before picking up his doctor's bag and walking with dignity out of the barn. Vidal shoots him in the back.
This is a tragedy. Innocence and integrity will die at the hands of evil, but in certain situations that is the only noble recourse available. In the end it is Mercedes who is willing to not only carry a sharp knife tucked under her apron, but to use it when the time is right, who is the death of the "evil king."
In Ophelia's final task she is told to bring her baby brother to the labyrinth, little knowing that the Faun will attempt to persuade her to sacrifice him so as to open the portal that will take her home. The captain is in hot pursuit and enters the scene as she refuses to give up her brother and "shed the blood of an innocent." Vidal shoots her and takes his precious son, but is met by the rebels and the triumphant Mercedes at the entrance to the labyrinth.
Before he dies he tries to get them to participate in his personal mythology of handing down his pocket watch to his son by smashing it at the hour of his death so that he might know "how a real man dies..." The watch was given to him after his own father's death in the same way - and so we get a hint at what lies in the psyche of our villain - but the rebels refuse and shoot him where he stands. Mercedes says - No. He won't even know your name.
The film ends with Mercedes weeping over the body of Ofelia as her blood opens the portal and she is reunited with her mother and father, the Faun and all three fairies, and told that she passed the final test.
As dark as this ending is - the denouement means that the rebels have beaten the fascist Captain and that his son has been saved - he bears the promise of a new life for Spain, he will be raised by the men and women who have retained their humanity in the face of inhuman oppression.
Trauma and Archetypal Resources
To close I want to reference Kalsched's work again. The Inner World of Trauma utilizes several fairy tales and myths to show how the psyche deals archetypally with unbearable experience/trauma. The two that stand out the most for me are Rapunzel and Eros and Psyche.
First the basic idea of the Self Care System:
From about 20 years of clinical observation Kalsched says that in unbearable trauma an archetypal resource will emerge that rescues the innocent "spirit" and removes it to a magical place. This is all very well for the moment, but the Protector archetype is not flexible and wears the dual face of the Jailer that keeps the spirit separate from the real world to protect it form pain. Yet it is in reintegrating with reality that healing and wholeness lie. The archetypal realm/resource is in service of our real lives, but in severe trauma this relationship is often turned on it's head.
I would add that the popular regressive spiritual fascination (as a result of direct trauma, emotional alienation, existential angst , a corrupted society etc) with finding other worlds to escape to, get special guidance from, or see as the underlying more-real-than-real substratum of our "illusory" world is a subset of this phenomenon - be it via astrology, channnelled aliens, new age interpretations of "enlightenment" or synchronicty, quantum phsyics, ancient prophecy coming true on some numerologically auspicious date etc, or traditional religious ideas of heaven .. (All of which btw can be best understood as contemporary mythic symbols that have been sadly literalized out of their deeper meanings...)
Kalsched asserts that it is through negotiating the process whereby the Jailer/Protector figure relinquishes control and allows the "spirit" or essential self to re-engage with reality and come into mature relationship to struggle that the possibility of wholeness, joy and love emerges.
Once exposed to this idea sufficiently i have found that it is common to many myths and fairy tales and is hidden consciously or unconsciously in films like The Cell ( as difficult as parts of to watch), The Piano, Fearless, and Jacob's Ladder.
Kalsched's revelation holds a powerful clue to spiritual maturity, psychological healing and bringing the mythic out-picturing of the psyche into healthy relationship to reality.
See if you can detect the threads of this idea as well as the resonances with Pan's Labyrinth in these two stories:
Protector/Jailer: The Witch, The Faun/The Captain, Eros
Notice also the repeating motifs of blindness and spiritual inflation and the neccessity of dealing with harsh reality on the other side of the tower, the labyrinth, the crystal palace etc... as well as Pscyhe's three tasks. If all of this grabs you imagination, watch The Piano, then Fearless, then The Cell with these ideas in mind.
All the best
~Julian
Rapunzel
There were once a man and a woman who had long in vain wished for a child. At length the woman hoped that God was about to grant her desire. These people had a little window at the back of their house from which a splendid garden could be seen, which was full of the most beautiful flowers and herbs. It was, however, surrounded by a high wall, and no one dared to go into it because it belonged to an enchantress, who had great power and was dreaded by all the world.
One day the woman was standing by this window and looking down into the garden, when she saw a bed which was planted with the most beautiful rampion - rapunzel, and it looked so fresh and green that she longed for it, and had the greatest desire to eat some. This desire increased every day, and as she knew that she could not get any of it, she quite pined away, and began to look pale and miserable. Then her husband was alarmed, and asked, what ails you, dear wife. Ah, she replied, if I can't eat some of the rampion, which is in the garden behind our house, I shall die.
The man, who loved her, thought, sooner than let your wife die, bring her some of the rampion yourself, let it cost what it will. At twilight, he clambered down over the wall into the garden of the enchantress, hastily clutched a handful of rampion, and took it to his wife. She at once made herself a salad of it, and ate it greedily. It tasted so good to her - so very good, that the next day she longed for it three times as much as before. If he was to have any rest, her husband must once more descend into the garden. In the gloom of evening, therefore, he let himself down again. But when he had clambered down the wall he was terribly afraid, for he saw the enchantress standing before him.
How can you dare, said she with angry look, descend into my garden and steal my rampion like a thief. You shall suffer for it. Ah, answered he, let mercy take the place of justice, I only made up my mind to do it out of necessity. My wife saw your rampion from the window, and felt such a longing for it that she would have died if she had not got some to eat. Then the enchantress allowed her anger to be softened, and said to him, if the case be as you say, I will allow you to take away with you as much rampion as you will, only I make one condition, you must give me the child which your wife will bring into the world. It shall be well treated, and I will care for it like a mother.
The man in his terror consented to everything, and when the woman was brought to bed, the enchantress appeared at once, gave the child the name of rapunzel, and took it away with her. Rapunzel grew into the most beautiful child under the sun. When she was twelve years old, the enchantress shut her into a tower, which lay in a forest, and had neither stairs nor door, but quite at the top was a little window. When the enchantress wanted to go in, she placed herself beneath it and cried, rapunzel, rapunzel, let down your hair to me.
Rapunzel had magnificent long hair, fine as spun gold, and when she heard the voice of the enchantress she unfastened her braided tresses, wound them round one of the hooks of the window above, and then the hair fell twenty ells down, and the enchantress climbed up by it. After a year or two, it came to pass that the king's son rode through the forest and passed by the tower.
Then he heard a song, which was so charming that he stood still and listened. This was rapunzel, who in her solitude passed her time in letting her sweet voice resound. The king's son wanted to climb up to her, and looked for the door of the tower, but none was to be found. He rode home, but the singing had so deeply touched his heart, that every day he went out into the forest and listened to it.
Once when he was thus standing behind a tree, he saw that an enchantress came there, and he heard how she cried, rapunzel, rapunzel, let down your hair. Then rapunzel let down the braids of her hair, and the enchantress climbed up to her. If that is the ladder by which one mounts, I too will try my fortune, said he, and the next day when it began to grow dark, he went to the tower and cried, rapunzel, rapunzel, let down your hair. Immediately the hair fell down and the king's son climbed up.
At first rapunzel was terribly frightened when a man, such as her eyes had never yet beheld, came to her. But the king's son began to talk to her quite like a friend, and told her that his heart had been so stirred that it had let him have no rest, and he had been forced to see her. Then rapunzel lost her fear, and when he asked her if she would take him for her husband, and she saw that he was young and handsome, she thought, he will love me more than old dame gothel does. And she said yes, and laid her hand in his. She said, I will willingly go away with you, but I do not know how to get down.
Bring with you a skein of silk every time that you come, and I will weave a ladder with it, and when that is ready I will descend, and you will take me on your horse. They agreed that until that time he should come to her every evening, for the old woman came by day. The enchantress remarked nothing of this, until once rapunzel said to her, tell me, dame gothel, how it happens that you are so much heavier for me to draw up than the young king's son - he is with me in a moment. Ah.
You wicked child, cried the enchantress. What do I hear you say. I thought I had separated you from all the world, and yet you have deceived me. In her anger she clutched rapunzel's beautiful tresses, wrapped them twice round her left hand, seized a pair of scissors with the right, and snip, snap, they were cut off, and the lovely braids lay on the ground. And she was so pitiless that she took poor rapunzel into a desert where she had to live in great grief and misery.
On the same day that she cast out rapunzel, however, the enchantress fastened the braids of hair, which she had cut off, to the hook of the window, and when the king's son came and cried, rapunzel, rapunzel, let down your hair, she let the hair down. The king's son ascended, but instead of finding his dearest rapunzel, he found the enchantress, who gazed at him with wicked and venomous looks. Aha, she cried mockingly, you would fetch your dearest, but the beautiful bird sits no longer singing in the nest. The cat has got it, and will scratch out your eyes as well.
Rapunzel is lost to you. You will never see her again. The king's son was beside himself with pain, and in his despair he leapt down from the tower. He escaped with his life, but the thorns into which he fell pierced his eyes. Then he wandered quite blind about the forest, ate nothing but roots and berries, and did naught but lament and weep over the loss of his dearest wife. Thus he roamed about in misery for some years, and at length came to the desert where rapunzel, with the twins to which she had given birth, a boy and a girl, lived in wretchedness.
He heard a voice, and it seemed so familiar to him that he went towards it, and when he approached, rapunzel knew him and fell on his neck and wept. Two of her tears wetted his eyes and they grew clear again, and he could see with them as before. He led her to his kingdom where he was joyfully received, and they lived for a long time afterwards, happy and contented.
Eros and Psyche
The goddess Aphrodite (in Roman mythology, Venus), jealous of the beauty of a mortal woman named Psyche, asked her son Eros (in Roman mythology, Cupid) to use his golden arrows to cause Psyche to fall in love with the ugliest man on earth. Eros agreed but then fell in love with Psyche on his own, or by accidentally pricking himself with a golden arrow.
When all continued to admire and praise Psyche's beauty but none desired her as a wife, Psyche's parents consulted an oracle which told them to leave Psyche on the nearest mountain, for her beauty was so great that she was meant for a god. So it was done. But then Zephyrus, the west wind, carried Psyche away to a fair valley and a magnificent palace where she was attended by invisible servants until night fell and in the darkness of night the promised bridegroom arrived and the marriage was consummated. Eros visited her every night and they made sweet love; he demanded only that she never light any lamps because he did not want her to know who he was.
Eros even allowed Zephyrus to take Psyche back to her sisters and bring all three down to the palace during the day, only warning that Psyche should not listen to any argument that she should try to discover his true form. The two jealous sisters told Psyche, then pregnant with Eros' child, that rumor was that she had married a great and terrible serpent who would devour her and her unborn child when her time came for it to be fed. They urged Psyche to conceal a knife and oil lamp in the bedchamber, to wait till her husband was asleep, and then to light the lamp and slay him at once if it was as they said. Psyche sadly followed their advice. In the light of the lamp Psyche recognized the fair form on the bed as the god Eros himself, and cursing her folly, attempted to kill herself with the knife she'd intended to use to kill her lover. However, she dropped the knife, and her spirits were raised as she gazed on the beautiful young god. She curiously examined his golden arrows, and accidentally pricked herself with them, and was consumed with desire for her husband. She began to kiss him, but as she did, a drop of oil fell from Psyche's lamp and onto Eros' chest and he awoke. He flew away, but she caught his ankle and was carried with him until her muscles gave out, and she fell to the ground, sick at heart.
The god Pan, who was nearby, advised Psyche to seek to regain Eros' love through service.
Psyche then found herself in the city where one of her jealous, elder sisters lived. She told her what had happened, then tricked her sister into believing that Eros had chosen her as a wife instead. She later met the other sister and deceived her likewise. Each returned to the top of the peak and jumped down eagerly, but Zephyrus did not bear them and they fell to their deaths at the base of the mountain.
Psyche searched far and wide for her lover, finally stumbling into a temple to Demeter (in Roman mythology, Ceres) where all was in slovenly disarray. As Psyche was sorting and clearing, Demeter appeared, but refused any help but advice, saying Psyche must call directly on Aphrodite, the jealous shrew that caused all the problems in the first place. Psyche next called on Hera (in Roman mythology, Juno) in her temple, but Hera, superior as always, said the same. So Psyche found a temple to Aphrodite and entered it. Aphrodite ordered Psyche to separate all the grains in a large basket of mixed kinds before nightfall. An ant took pity on Psyche and with its ant companions separated the grains for her.
Aphrodite was outraged at her success and told her to go to a field where golden sheep grazed and get some golden wool. A river-god told Psyche that the sheep were vicious and strong and would kill her, but if she waited until noontime, the sheep would go to the shade on the other side of the field and sleep; she could pick the wool that stuck to the branches and bark of the trees. Aphrodite next asked for water from the Styx and Cocytus flowing from a cleft that was impossible for a mortal to attain and was also guarded by great serpents. This time an eagle performed the task for Psyche. Aphrodite, outraged at Psyche's survival, claimed that the stress of caring for her son, made depressed and ill as a result of Psyche's unfaithfulness, had caused her to lose some of her beauty. Psyche was to go to the Underworld and ask Persephone, the queen of the Underworld, for a bit of her beauty in a box that Aphrodite gave to Psyche. Psyche decided that the quickest way to the Underworld would be to throw herself off some high place and die and so she climbed to the top of a tower. But the tower itself spoke to her and told her the route through Tanaerum that would allow her to enter the Underworld alive and return again, as well as telling her how to get by Cerberus by throwing him a sop and Charon by paying him an obol, how to avoid other dangers on the way there and back, and most importantly to eat of no food whatsoever; for otherwise she would dwell forever in the Underworld. Psyche followed the orders explicitly and ate nothing while beneath the earth.
However when Psyche had got out of the Underworld, she decided to open the box and take a little bit of the beauty for herself. Inside, she could see no beauty; instead an infernal sleep arose from the box and overcame her. Eros, who had forgiven Psyche, flew to her, wiped the sleep from her face, put it back in the box, and sent her back on her way. Then Eros flew to Mount Olympus and begged Zeus to aid them. Zeus called a full and formal council of the gods, and declared it was his will that Eros might marry Psyche. Zeus then had Psyche fetched to Mount Olympus, and gave her a drink made from Ambrosia, granting her immortality. Although some say their daughter was named Bliss, and some say she was named Delight (in Roman mythology she was named Volupta, which can mean either), the meaning of the name was intended to be joyful. Begrudgingly, Aphrodite and Psyche forgave each other.
Access: Public
julian - are you telling me it’s not all really real???
and that these myths refer to psychological and spiritual dynamics purely within the bodymind?
i’m devastated. and hurt. more than hurt - i’m wounded…
i’m not sure how i can go on now…
i need to grieve. i just need some space. i don’t know when i’ll be back…
adam ya punk ass!
good to see you welcome back!
you’re going to tell me next there isn’t any such thing as a christian god… and that integral islam/christianity/s&m is just word games about mind games
you’re no fun at all…
now i’m going to have to think for myself.
killjoy.
perhaps….
but more likely i'l point out that all of this mythic and fasiry tale material is intensely powerful - but that power diminishes more and more the more literal and supersitious and oversimplified it it is made….
the archetypal realm is powerfully real, but only in it's own way and only in healthy relationship to the place that really matters - our real life experience as human beings in this mortal world…
also it requires what i think of as transrational cognition to interpret it acurately and there is little that is vague or fuzzy about it……
what i really love about magical mythical stories is the way they go in fairly literally as rich beautiful spellbinding tales when heard as a child (depending on stage of development) but are then available for recall as metaphor (ideally) in later life and can be enlisted as powerful archetypal inspiration, or warnings, in guiding action. they seem to recapitulate the “wisdom” of the ages, to provide a connection to the perpetual human experience of the ages (which looks likely to end in the near future unless we realise the difference culturally between imagined reality and actual reality).
i'd like to see some newly written myths which incorporate the latest psychological and consciousness findings, nlp, self-esteem, world consciousness etc. not p.c. tosh, but really good vivid writing to fire a young child's imagination (and give them bad dreams probably!).
what i would call “real fiction” or 'reality fiction” - to program in a really powerful trail of breadcrumbs to guide a child through the dark night of the human soul on a hero's journey past the fisher king to the holy grail of their own potential. (to gratuitously mush together several disparate story elements - haven't quite got the hang of this writing lark yet…)
oh - wait a minute - we've already got those books - it's the harry potter series! phew! that's free human life saved then!
yes i agree adam.
hmmm i wonder if the wachowski's were hoping that the matrix series would be that.
btw wilber and cornel west doing commentary on all three movies in the special edition package is pretty excellent!
hey adam what did you mean by “nip”?
just re-read this, and excuse the long rambly post…
this is an awesome review julian…..
and i like elektroglide's idea about a contemporary hero's journey…..
thought this was interesting, since we're on the topic of the psychic self-care system—i'm reading kalsched's book (which i love) and was interested to see his critique of clarissa pinkola estes's work on page 111. he mentions that it can be therapeutically dangerous to take a view of the psychic predator or “trickster” as an innate psychic force in all of us. he believes de-linking it from a natural reaction to trauma undermines therapeutic possibilities.
the fundamental differences between being trained as a psychologist, particularly a Jungian analyst, and an SE practitioner strike me here. it's funny, till i read kalsched i wasn't aware that anyone thinks of the protector simultaneously as a jailer, but it makes sense. i have been taught to see it as duplicitous, yes, and certainly as a force to be reckoned with and eventually released; but i have also been taught to hold this force in highest respect. I had not taken as pathologized a view of it as kalsched seems to, but I could just be failing to understand him.
what i like about estes's work is that she normalizes rather than pathologizes this force which, for someone plagued with internal archetypal figures that are just coming into consciousness, is helpful in releasing them. (trust me.) i think kalsched's book was written primarliy for clinicians, while i believe estes's work was meant more for the layman. estes's work seems to directly help readers develop healthier alignment with their intuition. here she's right in alignment with SE—maybe not its philosophy, but in the practical way you might work with a client. SE trains us to help a person develop healthy self-protectiveness and boundaries, by which route they can naturally relinquish that self-sabotaging psychic predator—after all, his primary function is protection of the human being, and until a person is integrated the protector springs up out of the cloudiness of dissociation and denial to ward off potential dangers (which in many cases equals ANY external experience at all—so yes, i guess i do get kalsched's point, but still see it slightly differently.) and of course, i speak here as well about what methods, in therapy, have helped me.
I love pan's labyrinth! it touched me deeply, as i recognized myself (as i think many people do) in Ofelia. especially the very simple part at the end after her mother dies, all external hope seems to be lost, (i think Mercedes is gone too), Ofelia's sitting in her room and the Faun appears, charging her with the task of going to get her brother—and when she sees the Faun she leaps up in relief. i think this part captures perfectly how we feel when, in the midst of despair, a familiar figure emerges, even if it comes from within. :) love it.
Wow, Julian. A wonderfully detailed, psychologically and mythologically astute review.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I did watch the Youtube video clip. I have to say: I really hated that scene with the man getting his face smashed in. The brutality of it just went right through me for some reason. I haven't cried, but I actually felt on the verge of it for a moment as the image hung in my mind afterwards.
I suppose I am in a more vulnerable place this evening than usual. I've seen lots of horror flicks, especially back in the day. But watching that just plain hurt.
i know what you mean, balder….i'm not good with torture scenes (or violence) either….it's a testament to how much i loved the movie and resonated with its psychological aspects that i got through (most of the violent scenes with my face smashed into my friend's shoulder.)
j
haha - i wrote n-l-p not n-i-p!
as in neuro-lingustic programming.
there already are fiction works which explicitly use nlp, but i haven't found any good ones yet. i know from experience how powerful (even as adults) allegorical story telling can be, especially when combined with highly receptive states of consciousness, and judicious use of nlp could make it even more powerful.
does that make lt ciearer? ; )
as for neo et al, whether or not the wachowski's intended the matrix trilogy to be allegorical and/or mythical, i think they function partly as such (although i rate the first one highly, i think the quality of the other two gets progressively worse). there is certainly archetype and mythical content a-plenty, and i think the first movie captures some of my favourite psychological and ethical dynamics brilliantly. there is definitely a major hero's journey going on as well. a great comic. now i wanna hear that commentary…
“you have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it…”
the system - cultural delusion. religion. irrational positions. depending on your perspective of course ; )
“dodge this”
the bullet is definitely reality ha ha
“get up trinity”
a good one for world action. hmmm. it's a rich movie, one of my faves.
i find science fiction generally to be a splendid vehicle for allegory. i remember being really astounded (quite eery actually) when i was reading “ender's game” by orson scott card a decade or so ago, how many non-standard concepts contained within it i had been ruminating in the months previously. it's because myth, fairy tale and science fiction are metaphorical abstractions that they go into the psyche so well, as metaphor is so important to the human thinking process.
i seem to remember (?) asking you about myth and who you recommended as an author on the subject, but this is as good an exposition as i need for now, and you've contextualised it in a way i relate to strongly. nice one.
whoa balder are you saying i included the most violent scene in the movie in one of the above youtube clips?
didn't mean to - i generally warn people about that scene - it's about 14 minutes in and worth looking away if you are sensitive.
it does set up the absolute brutality of our villain and i think we need pretty strong cause to be able to plausibly buy ofelia's bifurcated dissociation from reality….
ok ok- i see it - i skipped over that because i was wanting something that showed the classic 3 tasks….. i'll replace it - it's really overkill.
thanks
Literally overkill!
I wasn't asking you to take it off, since it's probably integral to the story, as you say. It just caught me by surprise. Although it's just a fictional movie scene, it impacted me the same way some of those Al Qaeda execution clips did – a really visceral response.
no it's too much and will turn people off a film that is otherwise so extraordinary.
check out the new clip i replaced it with - i think you'll dig it - and no cgi collapsing faces!
daate - yea those are very astute distinctions you are makinf between lvine's work and kalsched's - have you watched slingblade and fearless - the two films levine reccommends? i believe he was a consultant on fearless so you see his model of trauma recovery very clearly through the movie.
i actually think about trauma explicitly through the lens of these two theorist/clinicians….
levine's work is soooo bio-physiologically based ya know? he is not really interested in the depth component of the psyche. he even says tat it dosn't matter if you ever know what did or didn't happen to you - because it's all about restoring the homeostatic balance of the nervous system and learning how to self-regulate again - period.
this is very pragmatic and liberating, but bot entirely satisfying for me.
kalsched brings not only the jungian depth, but also the object relations piece and a really psychoanalytic discussion of the transference - all of which i find invaluable.
i agree kalsched is writing for clinicians and levine a little bit more for laypeople…
also i think as you continue you may find that klalsced does emphasize honoring and thanking the protector figure as part of helping it to relinquish it's jailer role - perhaps by giving it something else to do - shades of voice dialog a la hal and sidra stone and genp roshis “big mind”…
yea that moment in the film strikes me as having an interesting subtext - she is so happy to see the fauna nd yet in a way the faun is manipulating her and we are unsure of his true colors - fascinating and nuanced stuff!
adam you've inspired me to watch the matrix films again and do a long piece on them.
wilber and west actually do a marvelous job teasing out the deeper elements of what the wachowskis are trying to do in the 2nd and 3rd movies - much maligned as they are - there is extraordinary vision there - they are ambitously trying to do a whole review of world philosophy and go beyond the simplistic good vs evil heroic story that the first movie starts with - they deconstruct the saviour archetype and bring in a lot of existentialist and humanist positions……
you might also like that special edition with the ken and cornell commentary because on an adjacent track - for all three movies - there are a couple critics who thought the entire series was absolute shite explaining why!
i'll check out the commentary. i haven't watched 2&3 anywhere near as much, simply because they don't work as well as films i.m.o., and certainly not in context as a trilogy with the first one. sounds like the concepting was more considered than the screenplay…
so maybe a revisit is in order! now i think about it, the scene in 3 where blind neo and trinity go above the clouds (trinity's first time ever) and the dynamics of that whole final scene etc have got me wondering.
there may be lots of meaning i haven't seen, although i was never as keen on art which needed separate translation by the artist or a critic to understand the value. tarantino's work (to use a prosaic example) is full of in-jokes, many of which i am not privy to, so i suspect there is more value for someone who shares his references. peter and the wolf just sprang to mind as well! helps if you know the story!
i'd like to hear the critical commentary! sounds funny. good call…
i'm keeping chipping away on the symposium feedback, balder's being a most helpful dude, lots more to come.
yes julian i agree, the purely physiological component doesn't work for me either—-it might help with shock trauma, but not with developmental trauma, in which the psyche is so interwoven and literally built around freezes in the nervous system that they are surely worth looking at with depth. kalsched's book has already helped me quite a bit; for me i think a synthesis of his and of levine's work is what strikes me as the most helpful.
if “fearless” is the movie with jeff bridges and the plane crash, no, i haven't seen it—though i plan to. again plane crashes are about shock trauma, very different from developmental. and i saw slingblade a long time ago.
it's hard sometimes getting other SE therapists to see the importance of a person's “story.” it's a source of frustration for me actually. while in training, i'm actively trying to build a practice philosophy which will also address the long-term effects of psychological conditioning.
little Ofelia, for instance, was already well-practiced in retreating to “fairyland” even before she met the Faun, which reveals that there was already some developmental trauma and that her spirit was already familiar with a mythic landscape; her archetypal defenses were primed and waiting in the wings, should her circumstances get any worse—and when they did, the defenses took center stage and became her literal guides.
j—i'd love to see you do a piece on the matrix.
Excellent review/article, Julian, as is your previous review of Pan's Labyrinth, a film that I saw for the first time last weekend. I absolutely loved the film and was very deeply moved by it. I needed a lot of Kleenex!
There is nothing I could add to your excellent analysis, but I do want to make a comment about the ontology of the psyche. I know (from decades around spiritually/integrally/transpersonally oriented people like myself) that some such people seem to think that whenever anyone says or implies that the kinds of realms that Ofelia encounters in Pan's Labyrinth are psychological in nature, they are somehow “reducing” these realms to being “just” psychological.
To think that way is to reduce the psychological and the psyche. When we say that intrapsychic realms are in fact intrapsychic, meaning that they don't exist in what philosophers call a mind-independent world, we are not reducing or devaluing them in the least. The psyche and everything we can experience within it, including all the inner experiences that Ofelia has, are “really real” as intrapsychic experiences, but the belief that they are real in a mind-independent way lacks the support of reasons and evidence. The mere fact that I and Ofelia and many others can experience such worlds, sometimes to the point of feeling convinced that such worlds exist in a mind-independent way, is not evidence of anything other than our credulity and the awesomeness of the human mind and brain.
Inside our skulls are what, as far as we know, are the most complex, highly evolved structures in the universe. The human brain has an estimated 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections between neurons or synapses. If one were to count these connections at the rate of one per second, it would take thirty two million years to count them all. It’s been calculated that the number of possible states a human brain can have exceeds the number of elementary particles in the known universe.
Is it possible that worlds such as the one encountered by Ofelia are real in a mind-independent way? Of course it’s possible, but possibility is not probability.
Jim
perfectly stated jim.
couldn't agree more - especially with the point about it actually being an impoverished view of the powerful reality of the psyche to think that the words “only” or “just” belong in front of adescription of something intrapsychic.
again it is about a culture at odds with interiority and so needing to literalize and externalize everything….
has anyone here seen any of the other movies?
yes daate, fearless is the plane crash one. yea i hear you it is much easier to write a story around shock trauma than developmental trauma.
the cell is pretty brutal in places but does an amazing job of going into the intrapsychic dynamics of a killer - his inner child, confused adult and out of control protector/jailer are all represented in a powerfully realized inner world/dream landscape and we see a harrowing but compassionate delineation of his story…… not fot eh faint of heart but an amazing companion piece to the kalsched book - as well as an aextraordinary ground-breaking work of heart (about 1/3 of the time)
any comments on eros and psyche and rapunzel? see the similarities in the arc of the story?
the piano is an amazing example of the same dynamics - anyone get what i mean?
Excellent unpacking, Julian–from the psychological perspective. But that is pretty much all I read in your interpretation, which is what I was saying here.
It is not an “impoverished view of the powerful reality of the psyche” to point out the reductionism of saying–as you are–that “A really means B” with no other interpretations possible or relevant. Perhaps I should replace “reductionist” with “monological,” for what I see you doing is interpreting Pan's Labyrinth through a single, albeit sophisticated, perspective, not unlike when a psychiatrist “just” sees a set of symptoms as a DSM category, or a psychoanalyst “only” sees a set of symptoms as an oedipal complex. Etc. There are other possible perspectives, such as the girl's fantasies as spiritual journey or bardo experience with a kind of awakening at the end; or we could look at the socio-political elements. And so on.
As you bring up Rapunzel, I would recommend William Irwin Thompson's excellent discussion of that tale in his Imaginary Landscape where he interprets it from multiple perspectives: literal, structural, anthropological, and cosmological:
“The first level is the literal level of the story that the fairy tale narrates. The second level is the structural level in which we notice that there are patterns in the narration, but we do not rush to organize these patterns into an interpretive schema, be it Freudian or Marxian. The third level is the anthropological level in which we recognize that the narration is telling more than one story, that something else is going on in the description of psychological and sociological transformations. The fourth level is the cosmological level in which one realizes that the story is also about the setting up of an order that is not simply familial or societal, but planetary; that, in fact, the story is one of the setting up of a world system with its new relationships between the sexes, its new societal organization, and its new arrangements of the planets in the solar system. ”
Now this is a prelude to Thompson's discussion of a specific fairy tale–Rapunzel–but it applies in general for any tale or myth. It is tempting to blithely equate his levels with, say, Wilberian levels of consciousness–but Thompson's map is different and it simply doesn't work.
Notice how Thompson is not simply talking about literal vs. psychological/metaphoric. His approach is more, dare I say, multi-dimensional. When I criticize your approach as being monological or reductionist I am saying that it is metaphoric–“A really means B”–rather than multi-dimensional–“A means B in this context (or from this perspectival interpretation), C in this context, D in this context, etc.” Thus, in this context, multi-dimensional means multi-perspectival–with no perspective being final or complete, and often without a clear linear progression to higher and better perspectives, but more of a kaleidoscope.
p.s. This post was off the cuff in reply to your review. I will explore and expand some of these ideas on my blog (partially in reply to your response to my post on “Beyond Atheism”) shortly.
very nicely said johnny.
well i went into the socio-political in my first piece on the movie which you may not have seen yet.
i love the film because of it's mutli-dimensional quality - it is about the ordinary world and it's socio-political struggle, it is about the intra-psychic world as a response to that struggle in relationship the a coming of age story.
not sure what you think is left out here besides the possibility that the fairy tale world is “real” in some objective way - which is a perspective that i think is sophomoric.
but feel free to write your own review and include that perspective and i will come and check it out!
yes i know the thompson book - it's a lot of fun!
btw - i think there is a crucial difference between monological and hermeneutically acurate.
i am sure you are familiar with wilber's 3 modes of knowing and 3 strands of science stuff.
remember the whole bit about communities of the adequate and that hamlet really isn't about a picnic in the country?
in this case we are in the eye of mind. and the interpretatioon of the material is possible by looking at what is being referenced viz a vis socio-political, mythological, psychological themes - they are tied together in an elegant wasy and consciously or unconsciously are referring to eachother and to this girls struggle to become a young woman in unbearable circumstances.
there are more and less accurate interpretations of art and literature and being open to all interpretations is not integral it's relativistic and ironically results in the flatland it tries to avoid.
nothin worng with the DSM btw - do you have something against accurate psychological diagnosis? surely you don't think psychotics should be treated as mystics?
oh and regarding bardo states - check out jacob's ladder if you haven't already - that film has a gorgeous bardo process clearly delineated through it's unfolding - very cool!
We run into all sorts of problems when we say things like “hermeneutically accurate,” because the phrase implies that there is one correct interpretation–which is exactly my point.
I am not saying that all interpretations are valid, but nor am I placing one interpretive model on top as the most integral. The kind of multi-dimensionality I am talking about implies an open-endedness so that we don't end up with a final and complete theory of everything through which we can explain everything. This approach only works, imo, within the Gebserian rational structure, which is why I am beginning to think that Wilber's AQAL approach is more of a precursor to than an outgrowth of the Gebserian integral structure, a transition if you will. But that's another topic.
The DSM is a useful tool but, like any tool or model, has its limitations. This famous adage is relevant “If your only tool is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail.” If your only toolbox is the DSM then everything looks like a psychological disorder. And let us not forget that the DSM is always changing–V is due out sometime in the next few years–and is really a reflection of current cultural assumptions. So the notion of “accurate psychological diagnosis” is similar to the notion of “hermeneutical accuracy”–both must be placed within a larger context, one that is multi-dimensional, multi-perspectival, and in a constant state of flux.
I've seen Jacob's Ladder a few times and love it. I bawl every time I see it! Some of the things Danny Aiello's character says are absolutely exquisite.
also: for what it is worth -
the above is an in-depth article about the psychological function of myth-making specifically with regard to trauma and archetypal resource a la kalshced who is coming from a campbellian/jungian perspective.
his book is based on 20 years of clinical experience and theory. their work speaks for itself in it's depth and span…..
sure there are other aspects to consider, but this is beautiful, elegant, intelligent and rings incredibly true to me.
i am applying his powerful analsis and model to del toro's magnificent piece of moviemaking thatt illustartes the model beautifully.
given that we live in a world caught spiritually between kitschy new age age magic literalism and fundamentalist religious mythic literalism - an intellaectual, psychological and spiritual call to deeper levels of metaphoric, symbolic, formal operations and vision logic development is essential before any realistic movement toward integral consciousness can occur.
the fatc that so many who identify as integral have yet to develop this kind of integrated cognition with their spirituality seems like a big blind spot to me…
just relieve me for a moment here JB - you don't think that there reallly is an objectively real world we can go to where frogs have golden keys in their bellies and blind monstrous baby-eaters come afte us if we disobey the rules?
you do get that it is an honoring of the intra-psychic realms to put them in their proper context and understand their function and a dishonoring of that function and proper place to incorrrectly perceive the intra-psychic realms as having objective reality - and that it is precisely this misperception that is correctly understood as mental illness?
hey JB let's just bond on the fact that we both love jacob's ladder!
what are some of your other favorites?
it's probably in my top 10 of all time:
(in no order)
pan's labyrinth
jacob's ladder
the fountain
blade runner
apocalypse now
the age of innocence
the thin red line
the new world
wings of desire
the piano
“surely you don't think psychotics should be treated as mystics?”
there is an argument that mysticism constitutes a form of psychosis
this is related to a blog i'll be posting shortly
psychosis can be described as lying on a continuum of consciousness, with severe loss of contact with reality in its more extreme manifestations, and including disorganized thinking, delusions, hallucinations, and lack of insight into the foregoing as possible symptoms at various stages.
at the other end of this particular continuum would lie a firm grasp on objective reality as characterised by a high level of critical thinking and rational thought processes. while i am not qualified to “diagnose, treat, or cure” psychosis, the word has been increasingly coming to mind in seeing some recent blogs on this site, and on occasion when people's thinking betrays such a profound break with any rational connection with reality, i struggle to find other words to describe what i am reading/seeing, even when psychosis is qualified with prefacing words such as “selective” and “voluntary”…
adam - good to have you in the mix - now we have three voices along a continuum…..
Actually, I have a remarkable piece of chalk that opens up portals to other dimensions…ha ha, never fear Julian, I don't think such things are “literal truth”. Another way of phrasing what I am trying to express is that mythic art, true myth–not simply a story of the Wilberian mythic level–is multi-faceted, with numerous levels of meaning and application. In other words, there isn't merely a single “proper context”–a true psychological interpretation. Art that is strictly metaphorical (“A = B”) is less potent than art that is multi-dimensional, imo. But again, I will elaborate on my blog shortly.
As for movies, nice selection–I enjoyed all of those, some are even among my all-time favorites. I list a bunch of movies on my profile, but here are a few that come most readily to mind:
Excalibur
Thin Red Line
Renegade
Annie Hall
Jacob's Ladder
Last Temptation of Christ
Zardoz
The Dark Crystal
The Natural
The Emerald Forest
The Truman Show
I'm still digesting the Fountain and Pan's Labyrinth, having just seen them. Both were very impressive to say the least.
i agree jb - that's why i did a multi-dimensional analysis of pan's labyrinth in two parts that covered the plotline, socio-political theme, hero's journey mythology a la the master joseph Campbell, and a jungian perspective on the mythic psyche as a way to deal with unbearable trauma - with multiple references to other films, myth and fairy tale….
not sure what you think is missing? - perhaps you will do a piece on the film of your own that round it out sufficiently for you…. i have a feeling that no matter what i wrote you would allude to something lacking to make it “more integral,” but the specifics would not be forthcoming.
yes there are multiple levels of meaning, as i dutifully unfolded in a way that is revelatory for me and drawing on multiple sources - but in all good art there is something the artist is saying consciously or unconsciously that can be interpreted more or less accurately. of course there may be some minor variation - or even a couple big variables that could go a couple ways - but art does not have multiple interpretations - multiple levels that arrive at one or two good interpretations, but not multiple completely different meanings. if that were the case how would one possibly grade an academic paper on literature, dream interpretation, sculpture etc…?
oh big mistake on my part - i left out the last temptation! not sure which one that would replace, but as has to be in my top ten!
yea i love that whole truman type genre too - the kaufman films are brilliant and i think the recent film with will ferrel, maggie gyllenhaal and emma thompson was a good addition to that pomo narrative category…
adamski
i hear you on the prevalence of pre trans confusion on zaadz.
i know that you don';t think there is a trans - and in many ways i am sympathetic to your point of view.
however for me the above interpretation of pan's lab is an excercise in transrational, postconventional cognition, intuition etc informed by psychological and mythological nuances that are not availabel to pure rational consciousness - i think of it as high order formop and vision logic.
i also have experienced deep meditative states of non-dual awareness that do enfold ratiionality within a larger embrace that recognizes the unity of opposites in a non-regressive, non-delusional way and that requires no dissociation or psychotic fantasy.
the fact that this kind of grounded mysticism is in short supply has more to do with the lack of serious practice and the abundance of silly new age fantasy amongst people who have learned to toss integral and non-dual language around….
ola j.
i hear you on the prevalence of pre trans confusion on zaadz.
remind me which instance of mine you're referring to? i get the impression your comment draws on a few strands of different conversations we've had - i'm responding in that vein, hope i'm not too off topic!
i know that you don';t think there is a trans - and in many ways i am sympathetic to your point of view.
it's not that i don't think there is anything beyond that developmental stage at which self-aware rational thinking becomes possible - far from it. that's why i keep banging on with lumpy words like biopsycho-epistemology to stress that it is the entire bodymind that is ideally engaged in an integrated way in our thinking and decision-making.
it's more that i think the transrational word (as with others) means very different things to different people, and gets used in markedly different ways, and especially - not by yourself insofar as i'm aware - in a way which allows people to sit on the fence about it as regards mystical, supernatural and “collective consciousness” or “extrapersonal” interpretations.
as i said (in a message as i recall), i increasingly get the impression that when you use words such as transrational and transpersonal, you are not referring in any sense to anything going on outside the human bodymind. i might question the advisability of using such words if one were seeking to clearly separate magical thinking/delusion etc from direct experiential awareness of bodymind and consciousness, given the vagueness of definition, but that's about it. i've certainly been able to consider the concept of transrational more deeply following discussions about it, and seeing what people actually mean when they use the word.
(and none of this closes one off from the admission of psi phenomena or collective consciousness for example, if and when that becomes demonstrably plausible and relevant.)
however for me the above interpretation of pan's lab is an excercise in transrational, postconventional cognition, intuition etc informed by psychological and mythological nuances that are not availabel to pure rational consciousness - i think of it as high order formop and vision logic.
i haven't seen the film yet, so i cannot comment on your interpretation specifically - i'm just talking generally, and my comments weren't referring to your actual post, which i thought was great. (and i'm not calling you or jb psychotic by the way!).
i tried to get to see it last night, but nothing doing in the original version cinemas round my town, and the dvd isn't out until next month. i'm looking forward to it - i love well made allegorical fantasy/sci-fi stuff.
am i correct in thinking that one of the functions of myth and archetype is to facilitate communication with the subconscious and somatic thinking, and reflects aspects of how the human brains work together (using the triune brain classification for example). i haven't come across many people apart from you (and daate and jb apparently) who are using awareness of myths in an active way, or are so aware of their role.
if fantasy, intuition (which i regard as high-level subconscious whole-body information processing), feelings, creativity, reason, critical thinking are all employed synergistically in “thinking”, is that anywhere near what you are referring to by transrational, postconventional cognition? i don't see that any aspect of the bodymind should be antagonistic towards consciousness and thinking and feeling - all mental and somatic faculties can and should legitimately contribute. the more psychological dysfunction, the lower the self-esteem, the more dissociated one is from body awareness, the harder it is to do this kind of integrated thinking effectively.
as far as transcending the personal self in order to get on well with other people, end suffering etc as recommended by various traditions - i think that that direction is profoundly mistaken (and just plain wrong - the “self” as such can't be discarded). healthy selves with a good level of self-esteem seek to get on benevolently with other human beings automatically on the whole!
while i can sympathise with the growing popularity of buddhism in the west, i do not think that it's cultural fashionability is matched by its value as a philosophical, psychological, and spiritual system. there are significant deficiencies and errors in both eastern traditional and western modernist approaches, and in light of awareness of the importance of integrating all of the bodymind faculties healthily, i do think we need new culturally embedded practices which better reflect that reality as we currently understand it. this i don't see as integrating east and west, just a matter of taking from what we know that which seems to reflect reality best and work most effectively.
i also have experienced deep meditative states of non-dual awareness that do enfold ratiionality within a larger embrace that recognizes the unity of opposites in a non-regressive, non-delusional way and that requires no dissociation or psychotic fantasy.
i'm not sure about the unity of opposites - other than the fact by definition of their relatedness - it's not something that i have a direct experience of at least. in my experience, intense meditative states/altered states of consciousness have not had a lot to do with rationality per se one way or the other - i see them as just states of consciousness (profoundly amazing though they may be), tremendously life-affirming and enriching experiences which have brought me closer to the joy of self-aware aliveness. what i have resented as my appreciation has grown has been the cognitive interpretations that various disciplines have promoted as fact regarding those states. and yeah - no dissociation is necessary - it's just shifting locus of awareness to a different aspect of consciousness i think - using consciousness appropriately for the situation.
all sorts of things can be experienced outside of rationality - all sensations and emotions are - but knowledge and interpretation is simply not possible without the use of the human's rational faculties at some level. it is demonstrably possible however to use those faculties in irrational ways thereby arriving at erroneous and mistaken conclusions - having rational faculties and choosing to employ them consistently with reality is by no means automatic, which is where critical thinking comes in. for all the fact that the study of formal logic and reason originated mainly in the west, i think its importance is barely understood even by people in the post-enlightenment west, let alone worldwide.
and as far as self-surrender is concerned, without the self - the ego - consciousness is not possible at all. probably not a good idea…
the fact that this kind of grounded mysticism is in short supply has more to do with the lack of serious practice and the abundance of silly new age fantasy amongst people who have learned to toss integral and non-dual language around….
regarding practice - very important point, it's one of the things that i really appreciated in hokai's essay.
regarding fantasy - fantasy itself is not the problem - it's a beautiful part of having a human mind, and can lead to great creativity and insight. the challenge comes (relating to your comment about new age believers) when people adopt a psycho-epistemological policy (however consciously or otherwise) of believing fantasy to be true in preference to believing what their rational faculties tells them is either fact or insufficiently proven as such. this isn't psychosis in the clinical sense - it's self-delusion (among other things), but if that policy is maintained over extended periods, then the difference becomes increasingly minor in that specific area, and i strongly suspect that what clinically is called psychosis results in part from such policies being sustained over extended periods, with aggravating and aggravated factors contributing or triggering the condition. at some level, one knows that one is betraying one's own mind, and in order to continue to avoid facing that fact, progressive self-delusion becomes necessary. it can be selective so that normal social functioning can otherwise go on satisfactorily(especially if one finds groups of people who share similar thinking policies!!!).
of the three common usages of the word mysticism, i don't recall any instances where you have actually supported a belief in mysticism of any flavour, grounded or otherwise.
here are the three common usages i'm aware of:
- a belief that union with or absorption into the deity or the absolute may be attained through contemplation or self-surrender
- a belief that spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect may be attained through contemplation or self-surrender
- a belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of though especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies
based on those, i would not classify you as a mystic. from what i can tell i would however describe you as more genuinely spiritual than many who i would classify (and who describe themselves) as mystics or spiritual teachers.
state experiences i've had which could be described as “non-dual” have certainly had me feeling deeply connected with what i could describe as the life-force, life-stream, evolution, etc, unaware in that moment of aspects of my self-identity, and feeling inseparably connected with and part of everything, but i have yet to make the leap to the interpretations commonly offered by the contemplative traditions, and i can't see why i would. sorry guys!
this is a very thoughtful nuanced and brilliant bit of writing adam. thanks!
i do not disagree with any of it.
i think i still have a soft spot for definition two of mysticism - but it may just be a romantic hangover from my spiritual youth! :O)
Speaking of mysticism, look who's NOW on the path to enLITEnment!
;-)
Some specifics? I've mentioned a few things–for example, the possibility of the girl's journey as a bardo experience, even a spiritual awakening. But my point is not to point to something that is “more integral” but something else, what I am calling “multi-dimensionality.” As I said, I will elaborate further on my blog, including a reply to some comments you made there.
Here you go.
cool JB - i look forward to reading what you have writen and am psyched that this dialog is inspiring you to blog your point of view!
re: bardo possibilities - there are details like the two key story points that make my analysis seem more elegant and less of stretch + del toro is not as interested in hindu/buddhist mythology as say bruce joel rubin who wrote jacob's ladder and has said in interviews that he was using the tibetan book of the dead as a reference point…. that storyline is also much more consistent with that interpretation of his altered state experiences……
i am using multimdimensionality as i understand it - to discuss sociopolitical, personal psychological and collective mythic inter-cnnections - but i think again perhaps you mean mutlidimensional as in there are objectively beings like that in “another dimension”
question: in what dimension are a little girls parents king and queen and she the princess? is this a universal idea that kids have because of it's psychological basis or because kids are closer to awareness of a literal other world where such things are objectively true?
for me the answer is obvious - as it is for 99% of people i would pay any serious attention to in the mythic and psychological field.
these sorts of basic percpetions get debated back and forth for no reason and limit serious inquiry.
there is nothing closed-minded about that sort of hermeutics.
jim - the link is deffective - please send it again!
Julian, I would prefer you stopped polarizing me falsely as arguing for a literal interpretation–that is not what I am saying. Nor am I saying that there are “objective beings like that in another dimension”–that is a gross over-simplification.
When I say “multi-dimensional” I am talking about one that is “trans-psychological”–that it is can include psychological interpretations but isn't limited to them. Thus while I see your approach as being integral psychological, it is not “multi-dimensional”–not because it isn't multi-faceted (e.g. sociopolitical, personal and collective psychological) but because it is looking at these phenomena as solely intra-psychic.
In other words, a key element of multi-dimensionality is an external correlation to the intra-psychic phenomena, or rather a kind of archetypal reality that manifests into different domains–including the psychological. This is not the same as literalism. As long as we stay within the intra-psychic domain we are limited to psychology, and thus limited to the personal/mental level, even if the “deeper intra-psychic” aka collective.
To answer your question, the answer is not so obvious or either/or as you would have it. It isn't simply “serious folk” (you and 99% of people that you take seriously, seeminglyl) vs. the whackos that have experienced or are open to extra-psychic phenomena–that is the classic, dare I say close-minded, modernist academic approach that reduces everything non-mental to the mental or pre-mental. And yes, in certain circumstances children may be able to “see” things that you or I cannot.
So I guess you shouldn't pay any serious attention to what I am saying? ;-)
Here's the link again.
(In case it still doesn't work, it's a photo of Paris Hilton holding a copy of The Power of Now.)
Oh, I see–all I saw was her nipples.
jim - i thought that was hilarious. and she had the “holy bible” underneath! i hope she doesn't believe any of it, or she'll get afraid. very afraid…
she should have known not to try mindfulness meditation while driving a vehicle drunk… it'll be good for her to spend time behind bars instead of in front of them : )
Inside our skulls are what, as far as we know, are the most complex, highly evolved structures in the universe. The human brain has an estimated 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections between neurons or synapses. If one were to count these connections at the rate of one per second, it would take thirty two million years to count them all. It’s been calculated that the number of possible states a human brain can have exceeds the number of elementary particles in the known universe.
that's all well and good, but have you seen the new nintendo that's coming out soon ; )
hi julian and jonny
forgive the cross-posting here (actually you started it jonny come to think of it!), here's part of the discussion going on over at jonny's page which is relevant here i think…
First, my use of “multi-dimensional.” I am not using “dimension” technically in the way that, say, quantum theorists use it (branes and such). I am using it rather loosely–more in terms of aspects of being and reality, but also in terms of perspectives and interpretive lenses. So when I say “the existential reality of multidimensionality” I am asserting that there are always different and deeper aspects of reality that we are not aware of, beyond what our current worldview is (no matter how integral or comprehensive).
gotcha. i would agree with that last assertion.
i do however get confused by your seeming to shift the goalposts for the meaning of “dimension” between subjective interpretation and objective reality, or wanting it to mean two different things at the same time.
When I talk about the sun and its multidimensionality, I am pointing out that there are aspects to the sun, even deeper ontological truths, that we–collectively–are not aware of, that there are different ways to look at the sun aside from the physicalist scientific one (as a ball of gas).
given that we are not omniscient, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we are not aware of any aspects to the sun other than those we have thus far discovered? how can you know otherwise?
what different ways other than scientifically are there to look at the sun, other than in metaphor etc or speculation? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. however, in the absence of evidence, we are in the realm of speculation (which in itself is no bad thing), and failure to cite speculation (which has infinite possibilities) in an explanation of anything is hardly reproachable or reductionist as you have suggested elsewhere.
when you say collective, are you implying some form of super-consciousness or collective consciousness?
As far as angels and other non-ordinary beings are concerned, they have been reported throughout history in one form or another, across cultures. To speak of an “external referent” is a bit of a misnomer, because their existence might be both internal and external, or both/neither.
to my knowledge (and consistent with my experience, logic and reason) a thing cannot exist simultaneously in consciousness and external to the bodymind. there may be correlates, representations, or processional effects/reactions, but not simultaneous existence.
“when we say an angel is “actually” an intra-psychic experience of love or wisdom or some other pleasantry we are reducing that which is beyond us to something within us”
here you state that angels are “beyond us”, this is what prompted my question about the external referent - you stated that there is one, as in beyond us. if you don't mean literally beyond us, then this looks to be a linguistic issue (although the inference seems to be clear in this case in context with several other statements you've made, including the last one about angels being non-ordinary beings).
what is a non-ordinary being? either it exists (in which case it's ordinary as far as reality is concerned) or it doesn't (in which case it's not a being or indeed anything).
The point that I've been trying to make is that cannot reduce everything non-physical to psychological phenomena, that is “Us.”
what else is there apart from physical and psychological?
a thing either exists or it doesn't. there is no semi-pregnant. either it exists outside of consciousness or it doesn't. what do you mean by non-physical? energy and matter are physical not psychological for example. life is not a thing, it's a condition. what else is there? you seem to be suggesting that something can exist other than in objective reality or in consciousness.
if it does exist and we have no physical evidence, then we can only remain open, again in the realm of speculation. the fact of a phenomenon being reported across ages and cultures does not mean that it cannot be purely psychological in nature - the human brain was a common factor throughout, an organ well known for being capable of faulty reporting, hallucination, fabrication etc, as well as astounding feats of abstract thinking and creativity. in the case of angels, as with many other reported phenomena, psychological and cultural explanations can be entirely sufficient. occam's razor can be a useful guide, as can einstein's plea for minimal simplicity in explanations. where an explanation appears to be sufficient, there are no grounds for labelling that explanation as reductionist.
I am not saying that mythological angels literally exist, but that they do exist, and outside of intra-psychic phenomena–or, at the least, beyond or deeper than our personal psyches.
this statement has no coherent meaning to me. either they literally exist, or they don't. you seem to be wanting both to be true. which is it? if you are implying that there are collective psyches or consciousness, on what grounds do you do so?
if you are merely speculating about the possible existence of reported phenomena, then that's totally fine (in fact anything you say is totally fine of course!), but i'm interested in why people choose to believe in “supernatural” causes for things which have sufficient secular explanations.
In some ways we moderns commit a similar, if opposite, partiality as the ancients. Where they saw the gods as “out there” we see them as “in here”–when both are but partial truths, as I see it.
i don't see the gods anywhere at all. i see both those claims as simple untruths. if you are referring to psychology or the mind metaphorically as a “god”, that is not how i view it.
I don't as much equate psychological observation with demeaning subjectivity or denying other possibilities (although I do take issue with the notion of ”objective psychological observation”)
i should have phrased that more clearly - i meant objective observation of psychology (or more specifically objective observation of psychological phenomena)
as prefer a psychological approach that is contextualized and used as a descriptive tool rather than a defining one. The problem with psychology is like any new discovery: one goes through a conversion and thinks they have found the Golden Key to explain everything. This can apply to Jungian psychology, AQALism, atheism, Anthroposophy, etc. Pick your poison!
i don't think psychology is a golden key, but it's a mightily useful science. atheism is not an explanation for anything - it's a negating label, not a tool. i agree that over-reliance on any tool can lead to imbalanced analysis of any situation, but in the absence of evidence that myth for example is anything but psychological in origin (the original impetus for this discussion), i do not see that anyone is over-relying on anything by failing to provide alternative explanations, especially when julian originally provided a number of analytical perspectives.
what i've observed in some comments on zaadz is that if a writer fails to mention a reader's pet theory or object of belief, then that is considered to be a deficiency in what might otherwise simply be a delimited argument. this seems bogus and irrelevant to me. i know in this case you're suggesting that julian's explanation was insufficient, but you seem only to have offered speculation to add to what was already there, which is not an argument.
this isn't like dominoes where if one thing is proven/disproven the whole thing collapses. were we ever to prove that angels do exist, this would have no bearing on the existence claims of anything else currently classed as supernatural. similarly, were we to prove that angels don't exist (actually impossible but humour me) then that again would have no bearing on the existence of god, wizards, flying carpets etc etc. myth can quite justifiably be said to be entirely within the realm of psychology. it may not, but that in itself is a non-issue for the purposes of the argument.
Finally, by “transpsychological” I mean beyond personal psychology, beyond the individual psyche–or more accurately, beyond psychologizing everything by reducing it to “me.”
not sure what you mean here. in what way does personal psychology reduce everything to “me”? as far as i'm aware, psychology does not seek to offer an explanation for everything, merely the realm of the human mind and its functioning.
also, in psychology, what is there beyond the personal that we have any evidence of? how can human consciousness exist outside of the human bodymind? this sounds like a logical absurdity to me. no mind, no psychology. psi is not relevant here - that is to do largely with individual minds communicating with each other.
julian, this is an example of the use of the “trans” prefix which seems ambiguous. jonny - please correct me if i've misinterpreted.
if i were to speculate, i'd say that you want to believe certain “supernatural” things based on non-evidentiary criteria, and are uncomfortable with statements which seem to deny that possibility, or which are restricted to this-worldly explanations, and see them as reductionist.
if that is the case (and i am only speculating about that), i don't see the point. what is the point in believing in things for which evidence is simply insufficient when the challenges we face are not regarding the things we do not yet know, but rather how to deal with the things we are reasonably sure of. i'm curious…
if i'm missing something here, please help me out jonny. i feel like you're trying to get us to see something, i for one am not getting it.
best wishes
hi julian
your soft spot for definition number 2 of mysticism is the most understandable one…
“spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect may be attained through contemplation or self-surrender”
this is a seductive one. we know that through contemplation we can access strong and strange states and perceptions which are not generally experienced at other times, and we experience those states as very real, so the above definiton seems to ring true. however, to then call those perceptions knowledge or objective reality necessarily involves the use of the intellect.
“knowledge” cannot be attained or verified other than through the intellect. feelings, states, imagination, intuition etc can certainly be apprehended directly - but interpretation is always in the realm of the intellect. reason is always (properly) the final arbiter as to what constitutes objective reality, and choosing to defy reason in labelling a perception as knowledge renders that label unreliable until the perception is subjected to reality testing.
keep killing your darlings… it hurts but it works!
JB - help me here - how is this:
”In other words, a key element of multi-dimensionality is an external correlation to the intra-psychic phenomena, or rather a kind of archetypal reality that manifests into different domains–including the psychological.”
not basically the same as saying that the archetypal material has an objectively real external correlate or ther eis a dimension in which it is literally real?
of course the archetypal material has an external correlate - the real world! it's an internal representaion of our conscious and iunconscious experience of the real world in personal and transpersonal (and prepersonal) ways…
i am not sure what any of this has to do with people who experience psychic phenomena - but again surely you are willing to make a distinction between the kind of stratight up psychosis in which a storyline like pan's labyrinth might be experienced as objectively real and high end transpersonal experiences. btw have you had any? curious….
and yeah - there are plenty of people in newage circles whoi claim to be in dialog with spirit guides, angels and aliens - but there is absolutely no reason to take them seriously - no evidence and i have yet to come across one who is in any way psychologically sophisticated.
generally i think that these folks are either incredibly naive and are literalizing an intrapsychic phemena - or more often a kinf of inflationary delusion (which often btw reiterates really banal new age beliefs and prophecies as if they are the highest truths of the universe…) or are trauma survivors who have mastered the art of dissociation or people with pre-existing mental illness whose brains have been further compromised by new age nonsense…..
again there is no-one in the seriious study/authorship on myth, psyche, fairy tale etc who would entertain what you are suggesting.
bear in mind JB there is a big diffference between the cutting edge and the frothy fringe. the ommission of the possibilitiy that ofelia is going into objectively real realms or experiencing intrusions from objectively real beings is not a lack of integral multidimensionality - it is rather basic common-sense.
there is nothing new about spiritualism and metaphysical literalism - what is cutting edge is the cognitive level held by a very small percentage of the world's population that is able to more accurately interpret archetypal/mythic/fairy tale material in a way that enriche s and deepens our understanding of reality rather than flatlanding it with superstitious belief.
we'lll have to agree to diagree on this one as usual my friend - but i look forward to seeing a review from you that includes this tack that you find so compelling - maybe it will make more sense to me then.
all the best
~julian
adam - thank the flying spag monster you are here to patiently point out JB's logical inconsistencies and non-sequiters - i ran out of patience years ago……
i'll go and see if his response cleared up any of this….
adam - yeah i hear you. the tricky part is that it is so revelatory to relinquish the reducing valve of the conditioned mind and of rational computation that i think we often forget that in order for any of the altered state emotional, intuitive, expansive pre and transrational experiences to be understood we have to look at them rationally.
the distinction between experience and interpretation is fascinating - what i observe is that the interpretation will always be a reflection of one's center of gravity…
5 different people who blog on zaadz have a dream in which they see an angel morph into a demon and kill their parents - 5 diffferent interpretations ensue based on whatever worldview they each hold…
all interpretations are valid but some are more adequate to the Kosmos than others.
Hi Julian, excellent commentary and movie,too! I noted two things which i havn't heard talked about here, so i'll mention them. The Fascist's were into lotteries in that movie (North America seems to be obssesed with them today), and they also mentioned in one scene the doctrine of choice. Like, that young man choose to have his head bashed in by the Captain (this also seems to be a prevalent doctrine today).
As for me, as a child i didn't have any fantasies of other worlds, let alone other worlds that were real. i'd like to think that i can make a distiction between fantasy and reality. As an adult who has been fascinated with the night sky, i can safely say that i've never seen anything out of the natural order of things, no ufo's, no aliens! But, as an adult, i have had clear, lucid, non-drug experiences with Angels, Demons, and the Annoited One (Christ). I agree with Adam that those experiences are unprovable, and fall into the 'space' of meta-physical speculation. Whether those beings exist independently from my own conciousness i can't really say, and concede the possibility that they do not. i've also experienced meditative states of Samadhi, and the only way i can 'reasonably' reconcile the two experiences is by what i've come to call unity conciousness ( the state that the mythological Adam and Eve had before the fall).
Keep up the good work, Andrew……..
Hello Julian,
Your psychological interpretation is very profound and interesting.
I personally saw Ofelia as a metaphor for Mercedes' inner psychic development, what happens to Ofelia is a psychic “mirror” to what happens to Mercedes.
Julian,
Commenting now has me late to the party, so I'll say simply that I found your two part review of the film cogent and thoughtful. I've criticized your writing and what I saw as an overuse of terminology before; this piece has me wondering if I'd been wrong.
When you say “the beginning of the bifurcation of reality into the ordinary realm and the mythic realm,” I understand, as I hadn't before, that you don't run with the spirit world literalists. I also think I see that you mean “archtype” in terms of the mythic, as do I.
andrew and oneiro - nice observations - thanks for the thought-food!
ldg - i appreciate that - thank you. (& i agree….)
i think the tendency to lean on the integgral jargon is something i am guilty of at times - especially when addressing something i see in the “integral community”….
however i try to steer clear of it as long as i don't feel it is the simplest way to make a point.