I wrote an essay after a webinar discussion with an associate/teacher of the C.G Jung Center of Boulder.
The only IC connection is I play a spiritual psychologist in the EVE Cluster (this is basically how I "know how" as I study Jungian psychology), but this may resonate with some folks who have dealt with these sorts of things in their RL lives.
This references in my persnal experience - dealing with psychologists who I (mistakenly, apparently) informed I was pagan. I clipped the more personal bits, as the Dr. I am writing this to and I are on closer terms.
?And this is why I dont write long stuff about eve rp.. im too busy writing essays on this stuff
--
- Let's use the snippet 'the romance of human expression' - (p6-7 quote by Alain used by the book's author in reference to the writing of Freud's in comparison to the writing style of the case history of Dora). I locked on this, and the surrounding wiriting, right away.
I like this snippet - it is is a good place for me to start my essay / thoughts on this in reference to the discussion about the beliefs in "stories", the woefully inadequate English word "fiction" in reference to our discussion on the matter as you explained it, and my thoughts on this in regards to the discussion that brought about referencing this reading material.
One can tilt the idea, if not necessarily any exact definition - of an "archetype". I am using the word in a broader or more amorphous sense, because I feel its concepts as used in several fields and colloquial usages applies very well here. The word fits well not only as a good explanation of the core of "invisible beliefs" (unable to be pinned down by a hard scientific method) as 'fictions' but also in the discussion between Freud's "story" format (and that his case histories make good 'stories') in comparison to Jung's thought processes on the functioning of the psyche and his subsequent 'stories' (and ultimately, why they didn't lead to a good story according to this author.)
Initially, what comes to mind is some of the concepts presented by Joseph Campbell in his work on the structures of mythologies (in which all religions are included, active and extinct) and works of "pure fiction", as described in books such as "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" which is one of the well known ones. The sort of "universal" concepts presented in this work (universal in the sense of every civilisation has their versions of this) means that on some level - possibly this is all even a glimpse into the unconscious level (my stuck-upness will replace "possibly" with "very likely"), hints that since humanity has been speaking or writing story since the history of people banging two rocks together to present day, a pretty logical conclusion that seems obvious is that humanity as a whole 'loves a good story'.
As fluffy and "truism!" as that turn of phrase is at first glance, it's a good point that deserves a few moments of thought. Biologically, for something so persistent and consistent in an animal's behavior pattern, it shows, if not a "required survival need" for the behavior, something that could be called a natural or biological attraction. As evolutionary theories sort of state that something we're universally attracted to must be an evolutionary trait for survival, the possibility of it being a biological need of that sort is higher.
I will not go so dramatic as to state in an alarmist manner that we will die without story (include 'personal story', or personal experience in that), but even animals in labs require environmental enrichment toys because they can, and will, self mutilate and could ultimately "die of boredom" though behavioral complications and stress leading to morbidity, lowered immunities, or death secondary to self inflicted injury. Though my knowledge on this in the field of psychological case studies and research is slim, I would not be surprised in the least if psychological disturbances are created or escalated by lack of "enrichment" -- and story is just that, in a sense both a preventitive and a cure for 'potentially dangerous boredom'. I won't find the reference due to laziness and I'm not sure if it is propoganda, but a correlation between people who are (non-feverently) religious/spiritual (regardless of religion) and a lower incidence of depression and anxiety could be telling if the data is a) true and b) examined further.
No wonder people enjoyed reading Freud. He followed archetypes and weighed them as important - purposely or unconciously. He didn't write a study. He created a myth.
I believe another part of the reason for this "love of story", besides the morbid alternative of someone hitting themselves in the head for lack of anything better to experience (I'll leave out my full interpretations of Dostoevki's philosophical views on 'the most advantageous disadvantge', which can be found in his work "Notes from Underground"), is that the sort of archetypical story structure - stories filled with archetypes as repeated ad nauseum as they are - still invariably resonate with the reader/listeners in a way that allows comparisons to past and personal experiences regardless of the specific details of the story in question. They also serve as vital building blocks for their physical/biological futures and still unexperienced human interactions and experiences, usually in the matter of the 'tropes' - the "archetypical" rites of passage, coming of age, personal ascent to power, wisdom, or experience, the "struggle", the "journey", etcetera - there are a few that are considered important or essential to this sort of story format.
Humans are inherently social animals, and so in turn stories actively told in a social setting or passively read by a solitary reader serve as surrogates or valuable additions for biologically necessary interactions and involvements in the unfolding "histories" of an individual and the people around them -- not only in the aquisition of wisdom and experience learned from their social group or their personal experience, but psychic health that accompanies the need for 'progressions' which this facilitates, self experienced or otherwise. If you haven't seen someone mauled by a lion or haven't been mauled yourself, there is always a story about it somewhere, and thus the imagination (and subsequently the human brain) can create the experience (up to and including physiological responses brought about by active imagination, intentional or no), and the listener can then can begin to lay plans for the survival of said lion turned real, whether metaphorically or literally. The "lion" does not have to be the common definition of "real" - as in - the opposite of a "lie". The meaning, symbolism, and truth of the lion is all that matters for the personal expansion of the listener/reader. More on the Lion later. As a personal example, as I said in a Science Fiction writing class once, "Science fiction isn't actually a fiction [defined as untrue / a lie]. Science fiction is just human reality with some spaceships."
To help, there is a picture of some real people and real experiences, plus spaceships. (EVE Online Massive Multiplayer RPG, my current alliance, Circle of Two, preparing for a major space battle.)
To help, there is a picture of some real people and real experiences, plus spaceships. (EVE Online Massive Multiplayer RPG, my current alliance, Circle of Two, preparing for a major space battle.)
When you think of all these aspects, it definitely brings into sharper focus the inadequacy of the colloquial definition of fiction as "not true", or worse, "a lie", which you explained briefly at the end of the lecture. If you add the preceeding information from my rambling happily opiated brain to the definition (I don't do so badly anymore on oxycodone 10mg, do I. Hah, resistance buildup!) - specifically the summary thought of, "one man's fiction could be another man's truth", and if you also add in the referenced book the comparison and expanded definition present for "romance" (with roman meaning fiction if I'm remembering right, I closed the webpage). For explanation, most people do not consider the concept of "romance" as a fiction - a romantic evening is not viewed by someone as "not true", though wisdom eventually dictates rose colored glasses may have been involved, or at least the additional emotive side effects of limerance - even though (as very much so) *it is a story* once put in past tense. It is not "just a story", but it does on reflection possess story elements.
In this cluster of concepts and their accompanying information, there it all is, the ideas of "concept and meaning" as opposed to the "defintion and solid measurable weight and truth". Semantics might be a better way to explain the "word confusion" that leads to many internal conceived notions as opposed to simply "defintion":
se·man·tics
noun
1.
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
It also brings me to my point, which likely agrees on many points with this author, but ultimately intends to touch on my personal belief in the concept of the essential nature - if not a biological necessity - for "the story" --regardless of whose story it is and whether you agree with it in a social/moral sense or not, and my issues in that negative encounter. I'll skip another entire essay on the essential need for "ritual" in human functioning also, where I explain wearing black cloaks on a sabbat or always brushing your teeth in the shower or always using blue pens in your publication hand edits all are equially "human ritual", and equally "sacred" (definitions 1b 2b, 5b at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred ).
That's part of my overall personal observations really, and our metaphorical Lion. No need to buy the book "The Secret" -- I never read it and don't need to - such rubbish published these days. I should become an author but the things I'd have to write would feel like a personal betrayal if I wanted to make money.
My kernel of it, what I've learned in twenty four years of research (which, well, no accredited institution that wants government funding or public approval gives degrees for this "nonsense!" sadly, so take my word for it instead) is this:
Any thought process that brings about an emotive response that is accompanied by a physiological chemical response that changes the body attains reality, regardless of it's truth; subjective, "believed to be objective", or otherwise, to an outside observer. (It will come clear why I use the term "believed to be" with objective.) As example, to paraphrase myself in a discussion in having mystical experiences, "I do not know if an OBE [out of body experience] is truthfully as I have read it to be; if it is truly solely a spirit leaving a body or truly a solely biological autohallucination, but regardless, the sensation [defined here as the physiological sensation that accompanies the experience] I get from it is positive, so in the end, it's objective truth for me is irrelevant." It feels good. Therefore it is ultimately good for me.
It may be an oversimplification to say "If it feels good to you it is good" when you think of the larger picture in anything, but take into account this statement as existing within the parameters of still being able to be in the normal band of functionality in one's society if you're discussing a non pathological issue as I am. A more metaphorical way to put it is, "It doesn't ultimately matter in the long run if you're watching one or the other prime time show in the same timeslot, as long as you're enjoying it and it isn't injuring you physically or psychically, it doesn't matter what you watch." (A similar concept is presented in the last paragraph on page 7 in regards to the topic, and also in the lecture section 1.)
The thought process is affecting in the mind and often can and does effect the body, and only something real can affect and effect the state of reality. To top it off, that is mathematics, which is seen as the hardest science of science. Zero plus a number is still just the original number, it adds nothing - something unreal or not existing can't change something that does in any concrete way - math says so. Therefore, if there was a change in the end of the equation (a changed mental state, belief, physiological response) - a "real number", a numerical existence - an object the number represents -- it came into existence and was added. What it is, that number, is irrelevant ultimately, this is only that it was real.
I know I am treading a super dangerous line with that statement, but as a B.S. Biology I have proudly trumpeted over the years that I don't fear for my non-existent scientific tenure, so my mind, right or wrong, will get spoken. No one can cut my grants because they do not approve of my exposed inner personal beliefs - I don't have any grants to cut.
I balance on that dangerous, at times, edge of 'challenging science' when it comes to doctors - not because of some self generated thought process of imagination that "I'm better" or absorbed knoweldge which led me to the conclusion of "doctors are incompetent", but as a researcher it was my job to question, question, question! (not to mention constantly reminding my PI, "No, Cam, we need more controls than this! Don't run this without a control!)
The long coat is viewed synonymous to a religious robe - someone wiser than you, someone smarter than you, someone who 'knows better' - someone who you place in a posoition of power OVER you who can override your own thoughts, feelings, and intuitions. A priest who's God is Science.
As I also wore a long coat, and because I trained crazed pre-med residents who were less mature than I ever acted and treated the lab as a playground but just happened to have more money (I would have been accepted into my Masters/PhD on graduation, but changed my mind cause I needed to work), I knew what a doctor was initially made of, and therefore have a dim view of the "coat as a symbol of I'm better than you and my thoughts are more valid" - especially when they're incomplete or not backed with comprehenseive explanation, which to me is far more valuable than the "symbol of the coat". You should have seen the look on a resident's face in 2012 when they waltzed into my hospital room and told me they were going to MRI me for a radial palsy. I went off quoting publications of the dangers of MRIs on persons with SCS devices possessing magnetic switches, not to mention pulling out the card I was issued and showing it to him with the cruel exaggerated slowness of someone denigrating someone less learned. The look was a priceless "How did you know this and why are you being the boss of me?" My responding look was eyeing him up and down, following the length his short resident's coat and purposely made the observation noticeable in my expression, and giving him a denigrating look of "HA, RESIDENT FOOL. You have no power here. My coat was longer than yours, by your own rules, I am bigger than you." May have been mean, but I was mad, plus being a guinea pig at a teaching hospital long enough reduces your tolerance of silliness - especially when it can injure or kill you. My specific SCS brand is not MRI compatable.)
As the kids say these days, "Come at me, bro".
Anyway, it is the exact same line - that "real versus not real" line - that many well established professionals point at and gesticulate wildly or wave a hand dismissively at when they yell about an incident being 'mass hallucination so it isn't real' or 'your brain made it so it doesn't exist' when it is necessary to them to do so and it threatens their own paradigm, belief systems, and possibly even their way of living if they dare risk believing it as true. They ignore the point that if a brain makes something, it is made. Even if it only effects one person, the affect has occurred -- a genesis has taken place, and something that didn't exist before now does exist, even if it is "only a thought form".
They refuse to self reflect and see they too, like the person who made the statement that upset them, had a thought form that was affected by an outside stimuli , which caused a response that was negative in their thought or emoting, and this made them yell "Your brain made it so it isn't real". As smart and learned as these people are, they somehow blank on the fact that their thought form, standing alone and naked on a scale of weight and measures is no more valuable or real than the person who made them cry foul, by their own definition of real they are using to denounce someone else. (hence the term of my use "A hypocrite" in the discussion.)
They can then quote evidence, but so can the person they're accusing of a "lie". They can cry theirs is objective and someone else's isn't, while in the background prestigious scientists, clinicians, and statisticians cry foul, daily and unheard, about publication bias and entire trials playing Houdini which skews known results for the sake of grant funding or federal approval - an activity which has likely killed patients in clinical settings as a result. (
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html -- yeah its a real Dr. talking about "publication bias")
In short -- There is no "perfection" in human to human interaction of any type. All the talk of "true and untrue" isn't true - all that everyone has is story. There is no "pure truth", as ironically people "romantically" like to define it, because we are not mathematical equations, and if we are, humanity is flatly too naive or incapable of measuring the numbers.
Therefore currently you can not (there's that art/science spectrum!) apply math to living organisms as a rigid ultimate descriptor, much less apply it to the human psyche. This idea has been bashed at quite soundly in philosopy before we were even born, and proven as, if not sheer nonsense, not "healthy" for humanity at all if it is actually true.
Doesn't work that way with people. In the end, everything they do to base their decisions on is not just based on woefully incomplete clinical 'theories' (70% true as defined by science, at best) of pathological or medical norms measureable with a calculator, but also heavily influenced by thier own personal social norms, personal hopes and fears, and socially trained delineations of normal.
Again, thanks Dostoevski, you beautiful Russian philosophial genius. From Notes from Underground:
"[...] science itself will teach man (though to my mind it's a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice or will of his own, and that he himself is something of the nature of a piano-key or the stop of an organ, and that there are, besides, things called the laws of nature; so that everything he does is not done by his willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature. Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him. All human actions will then, of course, be tabulated according to these laws, mathematically, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000, and entered in an index; or, better still, there would be published certain edifying works of the nature of encyclopaedic lexicons, in which everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world." ... "Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom that sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then." (section 68)
And why is is necessary for a medical professional to deny things that threaten their "own reality"? It is essential for their continued positive existence in their society/career, and in a sense, their percieved survival as a human being. It's well documented that social pressures and peer pressures force many professionals to scream impossible at non-traditional concepts. To believe them, or even neglect to denounce them without anomnity, is professional death, or at the very least a damned hard time getting a high grant proposal score in peer review.
.. and being unemployed leads to starving, and many people, I don't care how many degrees they have, do not think of "What would I do to eat and live if I don't have this?" because that concept is terrifying. Want to see a normally motivated non-pathologcal person wake up and think from the 'waking dream' of their ordinary life ritual -- imprison him without reason, leave him starving, take him from his element and those rituals, and you'll find his actual nature beneath his facades learned by habit or forced on him by society, the 'waking sleep' most of us live in in our daily unchanging routines. His terror of the unknown will give birth to his bravery. You'll find his fears, his strengths, and he'll snap out of whatever he's in and re-rail into an escape route. "Pain breaks the shell of understanding." (Kahlil Gibran)
Now.
Anyone who studies any religion or mysticism for long enough (even theologians of specific religions) usually, eventually, reach a breakthrough as their studies and thought exersizes with it deepen. This "secret" is: Everything in a religion or a spiritual framework is "only" a collection of symbols that is intended to 'connect' -- to generate a positive thought process of agreement, or an emotional response accompanied by a positive or awesome (actual defintion!) physiological sensation; "I got the chills" etc., which the subject of the experiences percieves as positive. Again keep in mind the overall responsibility of still being able to function as a social animal in a social framework.
A little known fact even among most 'kooky new age people' - and nearly unknown outside of the subculture, is this:
Those who are quite studied in many viewpoints and religions realise - just as "wise theologians" of major and socially/widely accepted/socially acceptable religions realise - that everything in these 'stories' regardless of their specific religious/spiritual origin is the same truth when reduced to its symbols -- regardless of whether one morally supports their ultimate meaning and consequences or not (Even an ugly truth is still a truth).
It becomes clear that though members of these subcultures could 'romanticise' this component of their lifestyle, and even attribute a sense of complete concrete reality to words on a page they read, this sort of behavior is the type usually present in a layman or early researcher/seeker in these fields of knowledge. More simply put, the sign of an untrained mind is to be more aware of the exterior 'structure' in the sense of its "facts" (defined in a philosophical way as 'a statement about the world, whether objectively true or false'), than of it's actual truths. They become entanged in its "story", not in its truth - they memorize, they do not comprehend. Their actions are mechanical, done by rote. They light a white candle because the book says light a white candle. They don't truly comprehend what it means, save the definition in the book -- and certainly don't realise that in a spirtual truth, they are the candle, the actual object is a psychological crutch. (thats high magic stuff, ignore that.
A true high magician does not light candles, make a rhyme, and cast a spell to attract a new mate. They shape their psyche, their will, to attract a new mate. They focus on and believe their chance of success with the whole of their will ("My will is the whole of the law"), and their mind becomes affected, changing them. Then they arract a mate because they are obviously radiating 'I am successful' (think you are sucesful and you will be - positive thinking and all that) -- and sociologially, being successful is attractive.
See? That doesn't sound so much fun, exciting, or otherworldy to someone who wants to light candles, play with Ouija boards, and talk to ghosts.
But why not just do it the easy "fun" way and skip the years and years of thinking? Why not read a couple books, be swept up in the story, live it, memorize it, and leave it at that -- be the successful lab brat and not the PhD? Many myth concepts presented in a "story form" are far more exciting, right? Broken down into their archetypes and symbolism to reveal the beginnings of the deeper truths of mysticism and magic ends up a confusing, if not boring, story to read for most, especially if this sort of material is the first they try to approach, and in some cases, that 'disintegration' of the story can lead to actual psychic distress with real physical and mental consequences.
In a sense, you need to be 'tired of that same old story' before you're actually mentally prepared and mature enough to digest the underpinnings and accept the "Atoms aren't actually solid, we're really primarily made of empty space" concepts. Once you're in that stage, every book in the quirky Barnes and Noble section is "the same book with a different author" and honestly most of them are churned out crap to make money and lure the naieve and lost into buying the author's 'unicorns are real!' drivel. To some in the subculture, we say this is the time to stop learning and start teaching, but again, those who really reach that point and have little to actually say but "I can not tell you - you need to see it" and be all spooky and guru-like. There's a saying that goes like, "The more you know about spellcrafting the less you cast spells, until you become a master. Then you never cast another spell again." It's oddly where the 1900s wicca creepystatement "My will is the whole of the law" came from. It's not the ritual, but the will, the mind, the psyche.
In contrast, someone new to a religious or spiritual belief, or someone who is trained either self or through upbringing to 'accept all at face value', would be more captivated by the story of a prophet or a god or goddess figure than the truth behind what these symbols (and yes, symbols) they represent. The surface of a painting is easy and beautiful. The technique of 'how a God is created' (the term used is egregore) is confusing "nonsense" until you're ready for it.
The difficulty for people with alternative religions or spiritual beliefs who have 'reached this enlightement' (isn't that a "romantic" phrase?) is trying to open the doors for the layman or even newer students in regards to this overall viewpoint - the "endpoint" of the studies (though officially, it doesn't end). Those who have not dedicated the time, research, and believe it or not - objective thought - to these topics are instead generally influenced and "learned" on the subjects based on stories of people who have not dedicated the time to reach that point (and why do so? "The story they are telling is boring! Hollywood movies make it look cooller/scarier/creepier.")
Therefore, if they hear a term that one of these people may use to label themselves (humans need labels, or none of us know what the other is talking about at all, much less the 70% or so we manage to achieve in communcation comprehension even face to face), instead of comprehending the label as the speaker is defining it, they apply their own definitions to it, which includes an entire host of their own prejudices, misconceptions and misunderstandings. And this leads to all sort of nonsense.
Thanks to social views, every label I need to wear to define this aspect of my life without lying has a negative and stereotypical connotation. Witches are evil. Pagans / Wiccans are loopy kids rebelling against the religion they learned from their parents. Magicians are delusional because they believe they can light a green candle and summon money.
Thanks to society norms, I can pray to the monotheistic god of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Pray to Thor, and you're a damned maniac. These judgement calls are not based on scientific fact, they are based solely on social upbringing. They are not scientific norms. If I told the professional in question I was raised Christian for example, it wouldn't have even been a factor in his diagnosis, because in the current social belief structure some "invisible beliefs" are somehow considered rational and others are somehow considered "lies" and "delusions" - because some stories are "acceptable" and some are "lies".
..
Which as I said? Pissed me off, as by the point I had my situation, I had been *studying* (not rehearsing the same 101 nonsense over and over) by that point for over two decades. I was beyond shopping for weird jewelry and dressing in long skirts and the "romance" of dancing around campfires and assorted trappings (Trappings contains the word "trap" - and it MEANS it -- officially though I never did any of that, well, the jewelry I did. But I am a woman.)
But to talk to someone in a limited timeframe, I need to use labels, not write essays. And "every label word" to describe my religion, to repeat the thought, has negative social, and moral (not medical) connotations thanks to popular word usage, collective belief, etcetera.
And that's why I like Jungian psychologists.
Because to me good stories are long and complex ones with open endings, and that's what ultimately makes them more real than "myths".
By contrast, ten years after that incident (yeah its been that long!) for my hospital stay to replace my SCS battry, the nurse saw me nervously silent and hesitating when they asked me what my religion was for my wristband. She looked at me with understanding at my hesitation and - let me be frank - pretty visual embarrassment and personal shame at not being "normal" - and said, "Don't worry. We have all of them in the system."
I just hope one day science will stop calling religious people crazy unless they're the right religion.
