Hullo Angus, David, and others,
Angus. Thanks for the lengthy and thought provoking response to my earlier
post to you. You have certainly clarified much that I found difficult to
understand or accept in your earlier writing. While I still disagree with
some of your positions, especially on the Jungian patterns you detect in
Lila, and indeed on the validity of much of Jung's mythology, (and
Campbell's too, David), I am reminded of Roger's saying; "I could be wrong."
Certainly it seems arrogant from a post-modern perspective to proclaim one
way of viewing the world superior to another, as I unapologetically have
done. I do not think it a bad thing for us to differ strongly in our views,
so long as we remain open to hearing each other with respect.
I think Wilber gets to the heart of the issues that concern me. In 'Sex,
Ecology, Spirituality' he says
"It is people such as Campbell and Jung and Eliade, operating from a
widespread access to rationality - something the originators of myth did not
have - who then read deeply symbolic "as ifs" into them, and who like to
play with myths and use them as analogies and have great good fun with them,
whereas the actual mythic-believers do not play with the myths at all, but
take them deadly seriously and refuse in the least to open them to
reasonable discourse or any sort of "as if" at all. In short, a myth serves
Campbell's main function only when it ceases to be a myth and is released
into the space of reason, into the space of alternatives and possibilities
and as-ifs. What structure does he think Kant is operating from?" (pp 238 -
239)
"Instead of seeing the concrete myth as the only way that myth can be
believed at that stage of development, and thus as being perfectly adequate
and noble (if partial and limited) for that stage, he takes the concrete
belief in magic and myth as a 'perversion', as if this structure actually
had a choice for which it could be condemned." (p 239)
I have encountered a similar process operating in main stream religion. It
was fashionable in the late sixties for some more intelligent Christians to
speak of demythologising the Bible, by which they meant something very
similar to what Campbell has done more generally. So the creation myth is
not a literal account of how things came to be, but a poetic story full of
insights that illuminate our being in the world, and so on. This may indeed
be so, but in my view such a way of viewing myth was a slightly 'shonky' way
of retaining contact with a tradition that had in fact ceased to carry the
dynamic truth, and which acted instead as a buffer against alienation and
anomie. In other words, a demythologised religion can still protect somewhat
against fear.
Those within the Christian tradition who still adhere to the 'myths' quite
literally, and there are many, are in many cases the same ones who would
reintroduce the inquisition had they the power, and are a real threat to the
world that Jung and Campbell inhabited, where intellect is both allowed and
valued. To put it more strongly, one outcome of the postmodern fashion for
allowing all idiocies equal value, for who are we to judge, etc. etc. is
that it sells out the hard won victories of the intellect over the worst
excessses of the social. In this I do agree with you, David, when you say
this battle is not yet won.
It is fashionable to damn such judgments as elitist. Again I agree with
Wilber, when he says,
"But isn't this view of mine teribly elitist? Good heavens, I hope so. When
you go to a basketball game, do you want to see me or Michael Jordan play
basketball? ... All excellence is elitist. And that includes spiritual
excellence as well. But spiritual excellence is an elitism to which all are
invited." ('One Taste', p 34) Here Wilber makes clear that the appeal to
quality is elitist, inevitably.
If this was all my gripe with the mediators of myth, it would not be such a
big deal. But there is a deeper issue. To quote Wilber again, "Campbell
commits the classic pre/trans fallacy. Since the prerational realms are
definitely mythological, then Campbell wants to call the transrational
realms "mythological" as well, since they too are nonrational". (SES p 239)
"Campbell's dual definitions actually undo each other, and point instead to
the inexorable conclusion: beyond mythology is reason, and beyond both is
Spirit." (p 242)
Those who claim Wilber never says anything original should pay more
attention to his pre/trans argument, since it is fundamental to clarifying
much discussion in the postmodern era. This is the fundamental difference
between "biological regression" and "the mystic letting the situation
dictate" Erin, and it is something that Wilber has learned the hard way,
from his earlier mistakes. But it assumes a developmental hierarchy, and if
that is disallowed then all is indeed 'equal', and we live in a perverse
world where no communication can occur, since we share nothing substantial.
While Pirsig falls into this trap a number of times in Lila, the very fact
of his writing a novel and a metaphysics and having it published is the best
argument against his views.
To return to Jung, Wilber asks regarding the archetypes "Are they merely
infantile and regressive (Freud), or do they also contain a rich source of
spiritual wisdom (Jung)? Piaget, needless to say, sided with Freud ... but
the situation is very subtle and complex." (SES p 220) He acknowledges
"there is a rush of energy in reading Jung or Campbell or Eliade or even
Bly - we are watering our roots, and they help send forth new branches. But
all that happens precisely because they are lower holons in a now-higher
awareness - they are more fundamental (and less significant) - and the real
power comes precisely form touching their basic structures ("archetypal")
while simultaneously robbing them of their worldview ... this ... is behind
Jung's dual stnace toward the archetypes: it is altogether necessary to
contact and befriend them, but it is finally necessary to differentiate and
individuate from them." (SES p 247) He concludes "I agree entirely with Jung
on the necessity of differentiating and integrating this archaic heritage; I
do not for one minute believe that this has anything to do with genuine
mystical spirituality." (p 248)
This seems to me spot on.
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST