#JosephCampbell #quote #Freud
Primitive societies insist on the mythological attitude, as the Oriental societies. These cultures encourage the child to interpret the world in terms of the mythological patterns. Those years of adolescence are the critical years, and there the years that in traditional Oriental societies do not produce the little scientific mind, the mind . . . → Read More: Indigenous Cultures Interpret the World in Terms of the Mythological Patterns
This point is tremendously important. Many of the images–which in our religion are dogmatically affirmed as having had historical reality–are very difficult today to interpret in historical terms. . . . We have a collision between these articles of faith in the historical and physical sciences, which we have to admit our ruling our lives, . . . → Read More: The Primary Truth is the Spiritual Reference of the Symbol, Not Historical Evidence as Truth
In our present world, the cosmological and the sociological functions have been taken away from us. Our image of the cosmos is totally different from the image expressed by the religious traditions in which we have been brought up.
Likewise, the social order today is totally different from what it was in the days when . . . → Read More: Today There is No Cosmological or Sociological Function
We are in a period that Nietzsche called the period of comparisons. There is no longer cultural horizon within which everybody believes the same thing. In other words, each one of us is thrown out into the forest of adventure with no loss; there is no truth that has been presented in such a way . . . → Read More: Nietzsche’s period of comparisons
Some minds require mescalin to dissolve in them their references; others may be quelled by the hypnotizing beat of a drum or the rhythmical organization of a work of art. (For example, which of us ever looked, really, at an old pair of shoes until they were shown to us by Van Gogh?) Certain religious . . . → Read More: The Symbol without meaning: art and science
The phantasmagorias of dream and vision are of “subtle matter.” Extremely fluent and mercurial, they are not illuminated, like gross objects, from without, but are self-luminous. Moreover, their logic is not that of Aristotle. In dream, we all know, the subject and object are not separate from each other-though they seem so to the dreamer-but . . . → Read More: Participation mystique: mythological cosmologies are functions of dream and vision
Is it then possible to have a science of myth?
Since Wagner’s and Max Muller’s day, C. G. Jung and Sigmund Freud have opened the way to the new prospect. With their recognition that myth and dream, ceremonial and neurosis, are homologous–their psychological readings of the phenomena of magic, sorcery, and theology, demonstrating the identity . . . → Read More: A science of the universals of myth thanks to Freud and Jung.
“An altogether different approach is represented by Carl G. Jung, in whose view the imageries of mythology and religion serve positive, life-furthering ends. … Our outward-oriented consciousness, addressed to the demands of the day, may lose touch with these inward forces; and the myths, states Jung, when correctly read, are the means to bring us . . . → Read More: Campbell on Jung on Myth
“Myths, according to Freud’s view, are of the psychological order of dream. Both, in his opinion, are symptomatic of repressions of infantile incest wishes, the only essential difference between a religion and neurosis being that the former is the more public. The person with a neurosis feels ashamed, alone and isolated in his illness, whereas . . . → Read More: Freud on Myth and Dreams