Joseph Campbell (rituals, mysticism, tradition, contradiction, beliefs)

[Sunstone]

What did Joseph Campbell think was the ultimate origin of myths?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What did Joseph Campbell think was the ultimate origin of myths?

I have to admit to not having heard of Joseph Campbell until you put this topic up, Sunstone.

He does seem to have been quite a character though; it seems as if the initial interest was sparked by the rituals of the Irish Catholic Church. Aged only seven, he became interested in Native Amarican lore; he spent a lot of time reading up anything that he coul;d find - including anthropological reports on Indian exhibits from the museum of Natural History.

It seems as if, at the age of twenty, he then became fascinated by the traditions of India; he completed his M.A in medieval literature, the subject for which he took being symbolism in the Grail ledgends. He then seems to have become entranched in the religious science Church, where he began to delve into literature for correlations between myth and literature and art from early history. He also became interested in the way psychologists relied on myths to explain their interpretations of traits.

He then returned to Columbia University where he wanted to combine his beliefs in Grail myths with psychology and art . He was literally told that his approach and the conclusions he would draw from his studies were not what was considered 'P.C'; he therefore gave up his studies, and wrote books - some of them concentrating on Jung's and Freud's interpretations.

He continued to study, and write - and at the age of eighty four published 'A Historical Atlas of Mythology', which seemed to center on Shaman beliefs as the core. He continued study, writing, and even became involved in television, Joseph Campbell and the power of Myths. Just before his death, he had begun reading the Bagavad Gita.

A few books of his were published posthumously, but perhaps the greatest impact he made was on the assertion of his that myths and rituals were the basis for psychological interpretation and cultural background including his Catholic religion.
'

[DeepShadow]

Campbell was advocate of the Jungian point of view that all myths have a common psychological origin (as opposed to a common geographic origin). According to Jung, as we pass down stories they are refined with each retelling to adapt them to the personal experiences of the teller and the audience. Over generations, a story will thus become more timeless, as it emphasizes our most common experiences as a human family.

Jung postulated the existence of a "universal subconscious" that contained archetypes based upon universal experiences and castoff genetic predispositions. Freud was mortified that Jung was trying to mix his "perfect science" with mysticism, and disowned his favored son.

DS, who is only just figuring out how much he's going to love this area.

[Sunstone]

How do Campbell and Jung differ in their respective views of the origin of myths, or do they differ?

[DeepShadow]

Well, Campbell and Jung aren't exactly the same, but I haven't found any flat-out contradictions yet. Campbell expanded upon Jung's theory of the universal subconscious and discovered the Hero Cycle, but he remained aloof from some of Jung's other psychological concepts, such as acausal relationships. I think Campbell just had a narrower focus, and in that area he went far beyond what Jung originally suggested. As for whether Jung would have agreed with him, I have no idea.

[tfp(-*-)]

I've been reading some Joseph Campbell lately, and this is how I understand it.

Joseph Campbell believed that myths were symbols that functioned as keys, unlocking the power(s) within the subconscious, that the conscious mind cannot grasp. This power is force behind the universe, which also exists within all things.

The kind of people who are the myth makers are those who have experienced these powers first hand, usually through some kind of psychological trauma at an early age. This is the experience of a Shaman. If the sufferer is strong enough to survive the trauma (described as a kind of death and rebirth), they are then able to communicate their experiences through various forms of mythologically potent ritual and art.

The problem, as Campbell saw it, was when the symbol is understood to be the power itself, rather than a sign pointing towards the power. When this happens, the myth is merely understood on a cognitive level, and no longer functions on a sub-conscious level.

Joseph Campbell's ideas are very much in accord with Hindu and Buddhist thought.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

How do Campbell and Jung differ in their respective views of the origin of myths, or do they differ?

Campbell believed in "God", I don't think that Jung did. Campbell saw mythology as man's way of conceptualizing and expressing to each other their universal experience of the divine. I suspect that Jung was more focussed on the collective subconscious. I think that for Jung, "God" was a word that people used to refer to this collective subconscious.

I could be wrong about this, though. I'm not that familiar with Jung's perspective.

I have always appreciated Joseph Campbell, though, since I read his book "Hero With A Thousand Faces" years ago in college.

[MidnightBlue]

Funny you should bring up Joseph Campbell; yesterday I started re-reading Transformations of Myth Through Time. This is the first time I've read anything of his in years, but as far as I recall DeepShadow's right on the money. Campbell thought one of the distinguishing characteristics of humans (including extinct species) was susceptibility to the "divinely superfluous" and the search for meaning.