Category: Literature & Art

Books, Movies and Fine Art

  • Jungian Archetype of the wolf – gods and godnesses, warriors and mothers, demons and outlaws, evil and uebermensch

    Jungian Archetype of the wolf – gods and godnesses, warriors and mothers, demons and outlaws, evil and uebermensch

    It became clear during my research of Jungian Archetype of the wolf, that in mythology, religion, in legends and fairy tales the wolf has played an outstanding ambiguous, dualist and multidimensional role. The wolf archetype is so  central,  that how the wolf is viewed, indicates the mindset of the human,  secular or spiritual organisations of the society we live in.

    In a few weeks, there is Whitsun, and I will make one of my occasional trips to the monastery. Writing this article was a preparation to the theme and will be updated afterwards The rock monastery St. George is a development center of the Benedictine  order in the Austrian Inn valley. From the monastery to the St. George mountain (Karwendel) on foot takes approximately one  hour. The religious exercise will be lead by a Benedictine monk, who happens to have formal psychoanalytic credentials and introduced the theme “The archetype of the wolf” for what to my understanding is a spiritual hiking weekend.

    st_georgenberg_stift_fiecht

    But there is much  more. Joland Jacobi, a close assicate of C.G. Jung mentiones the archetype of the wolf a few times in her book “Complex, Archetypes, Symbol in the Psychology of C.G. Jung”, Bollingen Series Princton University Press, 1957. Joland Jacobi writes, “being devoured or swallowed is also a widespread archetypal motif… the wolf that devours the kid”….  [page 155, 181,185].  C:G: Jung writes numerious times about Wotan, who was eaten at Ragnarok  by the giant wolf Fenrir and then avenged by his son Vidar e.g. “Four Archetypes Mother, Rebirth, Spirit, Trickster”, Routledge and Paul, 1957.  In the the same book, C-G. Jung writes about the wolves about the German fairytale, in which the wolf gives the hero a magic gift of his hairs (page 109) .

    Historical encounter between man and wolf

    You may refer my recent article “The Wolf as an Jungian Archetype Vessel” which argues that the wolf is one of the most persistent and structurally overdetermined animal-symbols in human civilization because the historical encounter between man and wolf unfolded simultaneously on three inseparable levels: biological rivalry, social mirroring, and archetypal projection. The wolf therefore persists not merely as zoological memory nor merely as mythological ornament, but as a privileged symbolic convergence point through which deep psycho-biological structures become visible in religion, myth, dream, political imagination, and collective anxiety. In his book Of Wolves and Men, Barry Lopez argues from a naturalist view similarly that traditional hunting cultures suggest deep behavioral analogies achieved through a respectful, reciprocal relationship. These societies and wolves viewed the hunt as a sacred covenant requiring humility, dignity in the ‘conversation of death’ and hunting skills. Barry Lopez shares a Nunamiut elder’s insight that a old man and an old wolf possess identical knowledge of the land and hunting: “After a pause the old man looks up and says: The same. They know the same.“

    The wolf reminded men to their domestication and their inner struggle with it. The wolf became also an image of remaining wild and sexuality, in a Jungian sense became men’s Shadow of undesired and unwanted. Those of us with Western background, do often not realize the depths and subtle (subtile) differences and similarity of Pagan German or Norse,  Eastern or Native American stories. Especially wolf stories examine reincarnation, spiritual energy, gift exchange, the vitality of the body, and the spirit of the soul. In the old worldview everything is in flux and begins, balances out from, and ends with polarities akin to yin and yang. Even the gods are subject to this, undergo transformation, and often pay for what they gain with a corresponding loss. For indigenous people – including the indigenous Celts and Germanic – religion as such did not exist. Native views of spirituality wed it to time and place, land and sea and sky. Our forebears lived side by side with the wolves in an inspirited world, and that world abides, as do its instinctive, but sacred dimensions:

    Axe-time, sword-time, shields are sundered,

    Wind-time, wolf-time, ere the world falls;

    Nor ever shall men each other spare….

    Now do I see the earth anew

    Rise all green from the waves again…

    Myth wolf – gods, goddesses, demons and outlaws

    Wolves make quick decisions, often need to trust their own instincts and  make firm emotional attachments. They teach us to do the same, to trust our instincts and intuitions, and have control over our own lives.  At some point in psychological development, most people struggle with the transformation of spiritual and physical aspects of their being. In many stories, the wolf was described as wild, tearing, biting, grim and bloodthirsty. The image of the wolf has been used to represent all those aspects.  From where does the primeval fear and awe of the wolf originate?

    Jungian Archetype of the wolf
    The Dark Wolf Outlaw

    Demons: In the Edda, the ancient Icelandic sagas, the wolf was a symbol for demonic powers: Odin, the God of war and death was accompanied by two wolves. The mythical wolf  Fenrir, a son of the fire god Loki and the giant Angrboda was stronger than gods. In Indian mythology, the wolf is described as demonic. Furthermore, the wolf is portrayed as thievish, deceptive and false. In India, the demons were named after the wolf. In Christianity the wolf was even equated with the devil: Jesus Christ advised against false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing which in fact were wolves. Numerous myths from Eastern Europe, Russia and Scandinavia tell about the creation of the wolf by the devil. During the creation of the wolf, the devil relied on the help of God and it was God’s will that the wolf kills sheep and goats.

    Gods: Many different cultures worshiped the wolf. For the Egyptians the wolf symbolized the god of the empire of the dead. For the Romans the wolf was the symbol for Mars, the God of war. The combination of the wolf with war was not meant to be negative but, instead, correlated it to the glorious death of a warrior or emperor. Furthermore, the fighting heroes were compared with furious wolves.

    Positive Male power: The combination of the wolf with war was not meant to be negative but, instead, correlated it to the glorious death of a warrior or emperor. Furthermore, the fighting heroes were compared with furious wolves. The wolf is also worshiped as the protector of human beings. The wolf was either seen as a fierce guardian or caring provider. The wolf is very often also associated with war and strength. In both German and Norse mythology, wolf was a symbol of chaos, destruction and death. Wolves are seen as teachers of hard, but necessary lessons. The wolf is also a symbol of guardianship, ritual, loyalty, and spirit.

    Positive female power: Many different cultures worshiped the nurturing she-wolf as symbol of fertility.. The most famous myth is Romulus and Remus, the founders of the city of Rome, who were abandoned as small children. A wolf found them and raised them as her own cubs. In other contexts, the wolf also was honored as a  symbol of motherly sacrifice and fertility. The frequent connection between goddess figures and totemic wolves may be taken as another indication of the great role of wolves in primitive matriarchal societies and shamanic religions.

    Fenir

    Negative untamed power: People from many cultures and traditions have interpreted the wolf as representing the untamed (unconscious). The word wolf is widely common in the Indo-European roots of language and often not only stands for the animal, but describes in the old Germanic languages the bandit, murderer, slayer, defied criminal, evil ghost or supernatural beast.

    The Wolf in the wild

    The basic social unit of wolf populations is the pack. Packs usually consist of between five and eight members, up  thirty wolves or more  depending of the size of the prey being hunted.  Wolves generally establish territories ranging from forty to more than four hundred square miles in some cases. They define their ranges with scent markings and such vocalizations as growls, barks, and the legendary howl and will defend this area against intruders. A wolf pack is typically a family unit, consisting of the adult pair, their cubs and yearlings – two generations offspring. Wolf packs rarely accept unfamiliar adult wolves, often chasing or killing intruders to protect their territory. However, they are unique in their natural willingness to adopt unrelated orphaned pups. Members of the pack form strong social bonds that promote internal cohesion. Order is maintained by a dominance hierarchy. The alpha couple, more often the male sometimes the she-wolf depending on prey and situation, initiate pack activity and lead the group on hunts. During a hunt, they will guide the pack’s movements and assume control at critical moments. Communication is especially important for wolves, where coordinating, cooperating, and reinforcing bonds and status are necessary. Within a family of wolves, communication helps maintain social stability and solidarity. Communication among wolves is particularly complex and use a range of vocalizations to “talk”, body language and scent. The “wolf” talk conducted by the  dominate male keeps the family pack together and working as a group. Research at wolves in captivity are not transferable in the wild, because here wolves of different origin or family groups were locked together.

    Wolf family the-alpha-wolf-couplef-amily-the-yearling-missing
    Wolf family the-alpha-wolf-couplef-amily-the-yearling-missing

    Wolves and humans were always fellow hunters, rivals, and sometimes enemies, perhaps because they were so similar to humans in many ways as mentioned before. Wolves have a strong social nature and are, like humans  organized as a family tribe.  In any case, through gestures and body movement, they communicate their feelings. Wolves like to howl as a pack for several reasons. It may be to encourage their closeness, to celebrate a successful hunt, and to tell other packs to keep away. The dispersed wolf, a younger male or female, is usually in search of his own territory and a mate. He will skirt the territories of others, but rarely howl. Leaving the pack allows for the sexually mature young wolves to begin the cycle of life by finding a mate, and starting their own family. This coined the misleading term ‘lone wolf’, they exist, but as exception.

    Until today, the wolf evokes fear. Yet the wolf is not dangerous monstrosity, but rather an intelligent carnivore with a distinct social behavior. Anybody who “owns” a good hunting dog, observes that good dogs, good leaders and good men in general share some attribute of a wolf. The life of a man and a wolf did not differ very much a few thousand years ago: Both were either successful hunters or perished – as simple as that. During those early years of mankind wolves were always competitors with humans for the same prey species. Yet the competition between them increased when men settled 10,000 years ago and began agriculture and cattle-raising. The farm animals  were for wolves easy prey, and many sheep or goats fell victim to  them. The wolf became the hateful animal, which threatened the livelihood or at least property of the man.  Even as backpacker I was more afraid of a wolf(s) pack than of a brown bear.

    Archetypal significance of the Wolf

    StrongMessagOfArchetypes
    Wolf Archetype: Dual Archetypes – conflicting messages

    No matter how polite, on the question how well advertising works, a marketer said once: One must know and find archetypal images and connect them with the products of the market. So the message becomes strong and the desired behavior tendency is more easily constructed. One finds few wolves in advertizing, since the archetypal significance of the wolf symbolizes evil as well as positive and spiritual aspects. As shown before, you do see the claimed by ideologies and religions.  The wolf  represents as noted before, and like the picture on the left an integration of opposites. It has always carried a sense of contradiction: a wild and fearful animal, that can represent death and evil; but at the same time a companion to the goddess Artemis and the norse god, Odin. Theis dual imago of the wolf is also represented by the contrast between its masculine and feminine nature. The masculine nature of the wolf is depicted by many cultures as the protector and warrior. The feminine nature is symbolized as the  she-wolf form nurturing the twins, Romulus and Remus, or in the Irish myth of Cormac, or Kaspar Hauser who were suckled by wolves. Interesting enough, Christianity enforced and broke this dualism in early Biblical sources presenting a contrast between the wolf symbolizing bloodshed and destruction versus the symbol of the wolf and the lamb lying down together representing peace and the coming Messianic rule. The middle ages also presented this contrast between the image of the wolf as devil, versus the wolf as an “emblem of Saint Francis of Assisi who tamed the wolf”.

    C.G. Jung’s basic archetypes and the Wolf

    BasicArchetypesWolf
    BasicArchetypesWolf

    Jung developed an understanding of archetypes as being “ancient or archaic images, that derive from the collective unconscious”. There are many different archetypes, and Jung has stated they are limitless, but they have basic  examples in very person  include the ‘persona’, the ‘shadow’, the ‘anima’, the ‘animus’,  and the Self.   Four more archetypes are prominently mentioned by C.G. Jung; ‘great mother’, the ‘trickster’, the archetype of transformation and  the ‘hero”.  It is interesting, that the wolf can represent them all.

    Jung proposed, that the archetype had a dual nature: it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He suggested also, that not only do the archetypal structures govern the behaviour of all living organisms, but that they were  controlling the behaviour of inorganic matter as well. The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a bridge to matter in gnostic entities in occult tradition are known as aeons. The Germanic Wotan (Norse Odin) is such an aeon described by Jung (who was very much drawn to Gnosis).

    In another Jung’s theory about Wotan, invoked in the Germans by Hitler’s disposition as a “seer”  drew a lot of political and academic fire. Interesting here is also, that Hitler, who was inseparable of Blondi, his wolf-hound chose a name for himself – Wolf. In Egyptian mythology a god, Upuaut was the scout, going out to clear routes for the army to proceed forward. One old inscription found  mentioned Upuaut “opens the way” to king Sekhemkhet’s victory. Over time, the connection to war, and thus to death, led to Upuaut also being seen as one who opened the ways to, and through, Duat, for the spirits of the dead.

    But back to my interpretation the basic sub-archetypes of the wolf:

    • The nurturing and protective wolf appearing as the great she-wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus (Mother, Anima).
    • The male wolf  initiated by society forces the young adult in becoming a good hunter (Warrior,Animus).
    • The guard  conducting souls through the gates, which had to be passed as in Egyptian mythology (Shadow).
    • The wolf in sheep’s clothing who attempts to hide its instinctive and wild self by developing a persona of meekness and innocence (Persona).
    • The howling wolf who has a voice to communicate with others and is reclaimed inner voice of the soul (Ego)
    • The wolf and lamb lying together, which represents inner peace  (Self).
    • The wolf who has accepted his (or her) role in life (Ego after individuation).

    C.G. Jung wrote little about  wolves as archetype directly but wrote extensively about fairy tales and myths in which the wolf often plays a major role. Four archetypes “per se”  are prominently mentioned by C.G. Jung; ‘great mother’, the ‘trickster’ , the archetype of rebirth (transformation) and  spirit, the wolf can represent them all and more. Many references to wolves and werewolves can be found in Jung’s Collected Works and separate publications.

    The Romolus myth is mentioned by Henderson in ” Der Mensch und seine Symbole, C.G. Jung, Jaffe  Olten 1968, as the fourth stage of the hero myth. In Bly’s  Iron John the wolf is represented by the wild man, the hunter and warrior.

    C.G. Jung’s archetypes of transformation and the Wolf

    The werewolf  as  bloodthirsty creature, once person, once wolf has been sold gladly by the  film industry in  “American Werewolf” or the classic silent movie Mr. Cecil and Hyde. During the Middle Ages, the belief was widely accepted, that men would transform into werewolves. The werewolf, a creature from the devil, obsessed, half human and half animal, roamed the streets at night and, “drank the still warm blood, gorged the bowels from its innocent victims during orgies of satanic cruelty”. The belief in werewolves already existed in the ancient world, but during the Middle Ages this belief grew to be much stronger. Mostly women and children became victims of werewolves, which, in reality were men, that felt and acted like wolves while under the influence of drugs and rituals. It was believed, that with the help of the Malleus Maleficarum (the hammer of the witches) in 1489, one could not only recognize witches, but also werewolves, which resulted in countless men being burned to death on bonfires as so-called werewolves. To contemporaries, it was clear, that one would turn into a werewolf through an evil spell or as a punishment for a serious sin.

    Wolf archetypes and pagan myths (Edda)

    edda

    There was even a  a monstrous wolf who was a major threat to the gods who appears in both the ‘Poetic (or Elder) Edda’ and the ‘Prose Edda’ written down in Iceland during the 13th from earlier traditional sources, reaching into the Viking Age. The name Fenrir means “from the swamp.” Also known as the Fenriswolf, he was the offspring of the trickster fire god Loki. In Norse mythology, Loki is a god or jötunn/Jætt or both. Some of the jötnar (a mythological of giants and giantesses) have hideous appearances – claws, fangs, and deformed features. Fenrir’s sister was the goddess Hel and his brother the evil serpent Jormungand.  The Vikings believed, that during Ragnarok, the battle that would take place at the end of the world. According to the myths, the evil Loki himself gave birth to Fenrir, after eating the heart of a giantess, the witch Angerbotha. After his birth, the gods received prophecies of disaster, but the gods could not kill Fenrir because it would have defiled their sanctuary. But they sought some way to tie up the beast, who grew noticeably larger each day. They attempted to restrain him, but after failed attempts they became even more afraid of the wolf’s power. Odin sent Skirnir, Frey’s messenger, down into the world of the dwarfs and had them fashion a magic restraint called Gleipnir, smooth and soft, like a silken ribbon. They called the wolf, showed him the silky band, and challenged him to test his strength again. Fenrir was suspicious because of the thinness of the band. The gods agreed to free him if he could not break out of the fetter himself. But Fenrir asked that, someone puts their hand into his mouth as a pledge, that the gods were acting in good faith. None of the gods was willing to take such a risk, knowing full well the deceit, but then Tyr stepped forward and put his right hand into the wolf’s mouth, making the sacrifice that would keep the gods safe. Fenrir was bound with Gleipnir, and he tried with all his might, but could not snap it. The gods laughed to see the wolf’s distress–except for Tyr, of course, his hand got bitten of at the wrist.   Fenrir continued to howl horribly, but would remain until Ragnarok, when the gods and the giants would fight to the death. By the time of Ragnarok, the wolf would have grown so large, that when he opened his mouth, his lower jaw would be against the Earth and his upper jaw would scrape heaven. Flames would burn from his eyes and nostrils. At Ragnarok, the wolf would break loose and join the giants and other monsters in all-out war with the gods. Fenrir would kill Odin by swallowing him. Odin’s son Vidar would then come forward avenging Odin and, killing the beast at last.

    Wolf archetypes – and the Egyptian Lord of the Necropolis

    wepwawet
    wepwawet

    In late Egyptian mythology, Wepwawet (also rendered Upuaut) was originally a war deity.  Wepwawet was called the son of Isis, and was one of several Egyptian deities to take the form of a canine, today identified as a wolf. Egyptologists now believe, that he was more likely associated with the jackal, though he is often depicted with a gray or white head. Wepwawet originally was seen as a wolf deity, thus the Greek name of Lycopolis, meaning city of wolves. Over time, the connection to war, and thus to death, led to Wepwawet also being seen as one who guarded the spirits of the dead. In later Egyptian art, Wepwawet was depicted as a wolf or a jackal, or as a man with the head of a wolf or a jackal.Reflecting his lupine origins, he was depicted dressed as a soldier, as well as carrying other military equipment – a mace and a bow.  With the rise of the solar cult, particularly during the 12th Dynasty, Osiris was limited to the underworld and the local god and Wepwawet  gained the titles, “Lord of Abydos” and Lord of the Necropolis”.  The god is well established in New Kingdom funerary texts such as the Book of Going Forth by Day, Book of the Dead, and the Amduat (Book of That Which Is in the Underworld). Wepwawet was also thought of as the messenger and champion of royalty  who accompanied the king while hunting as “the one with the sharp arrow who is more powerful than the gods.” Wepwawet  is not to be confused with Anubis.

    The story of Isis and Osiris is one of Egypt’s most ancient myths and base of the concept of death (and resurrection) which is so central to their religion.  Osiris, Isis, Seth and Nepthys and the elder Horus  were siblings born of Geb, the sky god, and Nut, the earth goddess, had five children. Osiris became king of Egypt, and he married his sister Isis. Seth was married loveless to Nepthys and always jealous of his oldest brother Osiris. On a feast of gods, he tricked Osiris into  a coffin and drowned him. To prevent Isis from bringing Osiris back to live he cut him into pieces and distributed them throughout Egypt. Isis, who had great magical powers, decided, to collect the pieces of her husband’s body and re-assembling them. Once she completed this task, she breathed the breath of life into his body and resurrected him.  Isis became pregnant soon after gave birth to the younger Horus, the hawk-god. The cult of Isis spread with Alexander the Great throughout Greece and became in Rome through Caligula a state religion. The image of Isis nursing the younger Horus found it way into Christianity, like the judgment after death and the hell and in Iris’ deed maybe even resurrection.

    While over the time all of the many gods only “survived” as incarnations of Re, who became the most powerful, almost panteistic sun god, Osiris was able to descend into the underworld, where he became the only lord of that domain. Here the first time in history the concept of the judgement after death was introduced. There were 42 sins, you could by guilt of. Ages ago, before the birth of Younger Horus, Wepwawet’d situated himself as the god of war, aiding his followers before, during, and even after a battle. But under these new circumstances Wepwawet petitioned Osiris these days for a new role.  The wolf-headed god was then assigned as guide to the dead leading the deceased through the Underworld (hence his name). Not long after Wepwawet appointed as guide did Osiris’ ability to communicate outside of the underworld began to wane. Wepwawet stepped in again and offered his help as a messenger (like the Greek Hermes and the Roman mercury). Some say Wepwawet’s still a scavenger at heart like his animal totem, groping for whatever task isn’t taken or is even partly available.

    Here a list of the most important and mentioned gods:

    • GEB: the earth-god; husband of Nut; member of the ennead of Heliopolis; represented as a man.
    • NUT: the sky-goddess, wife of Geb, the earth-god; represented as a woman, her naked body curved to form the arch of heaven.
    • HORUS: the falcon-deity, originally the sky-god, identified with the king during his lifetime; also regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis, for the former of whom he became the avenger; cult-centers in many places, e.g. Behdet in the Delta, Hierakonpolis and Edfu in Upper Egypt. See also, Haroeris, Harpocrates, Harsiesis, Re-Harakhty.
    • ISIS: the divine mother, wife of Osiris and mother of Horus; one of the four ‘protector’-goddesses, guarding coffins and Canopic jars; sister of Nephthys with whom she acted as a divine mourner for the dead; in the Late Period Philae was her principal cult-centre. I have written about Isis imported to Roman culture in “Isis, Mithras and Jesus”: Clash of male and female Archetypes in classical Rome.
    • SETH (SET, SUTEKH): the god of storms and violence; identified with many animals, including the pig, ass, okapi, and hippopotamus; represented as an animal of unidentified type; brother of Osiris and his murderer; the rival of Horus; equated by the Greeks with Typhon.
    • WEPWAWET (UPUAUT): the wolf god of Asyut in Middle Egypt; a god of the necropolis and an avenger of Osiris. Wepwawet (Upuaut, Wep-wawet, and Ophois) was an ancient canine god whose worship originated in Upper Egypt. He was one of the earliest of the gods to be worshipped at Abydos, possibly predating (and absorbing) that of Khentyamentiu (another god of the Abydos necropolis). Not to be mistaken  with Anubis, there is very little information about the family of Wepwawet, or parents, if he had any at all. He is sometimes the son of Set, or of Anubis.  Most of the time he is said to be a son of Isis, which may further relate him to Anubis. Or he could be another foster-son adopted by Isis.
    • ANUBIS: protector and son of Osiris and Nephthys.  As Osiris grew in popularity (absorbing both Khentyamentiu and Wepwawet) Anubis took on Wepwawet’s funerary role. During the New Kingdom his standard even preceded that of Osiris and the “procession of Wepwawet” initiated the mysteries of Osiris as a god of the dead.
    • NEPHTHYS is the river goddess and daughter of Nut.
    • AMUT, Ammut, or Ammit or Ahemait, is the crocodile goddess known as the “Devourer of the Dead”  assists Anubis with carrying out the Judgements
    • AMON- RE (RA), Amun-Ra and Akmun-Rah: the sun-god of Heliopolis; head of the great ennead, supreme judge; often linked with other gods aspiring to universality, e.g. Amen-Re, Sobk-Re; represented as falcon-headed. Re  is the god of the Sun and king of the gods until Osiris took over his throne.
    • OSIRIS (ASAR): the god of the underworld, identified as the dead king; also a god of the inundation and vegetation; represented as a mummified king; principal cult-center, Abydos.
    • ATON or ATEN is the new god of the sun, an incarnation of Re. It was a monotheistic supernova god in a cultural revolution lasting only on reign. I have written about Aton and Echnaton here.

    ATON was the (monotheistic / pantheistic) religious revolution during the period of Echnaton which wanted to suppress Amon, Osiris and Re (or assimilate him). Not only Amon was dismissed (whom all the kings of the New Empire had worshipped at Thebes), but all the other gods had gone.  Re became a spirit who returned life to each person after every incarnation and a new state religion, Aton (was Re) offered his mercy to all beings of every nation and color. There is a famous engraving of hands reaching to the sun representing an invitation of men towards the sky. Aton, the father of all the gods, also embodied them in his being, and became the one who could purify human beings, when they asked his aid to take them out of the darkness of their material life.

    Wolf archetypes and Christianity

    Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing

    Early Christianity on the European continent employed the wolf, too, but instead of a symbol of nurturing or supernatural transition, the wolf became associated with evil and damnation as the agrarian way of life grew. The Bible describes Jesus as the shepherd protecting his herd of sheep from the wolf (The Bible, John 10:12). This would imply an intrinsic belief of the wolf as a symbol of sin and prurient influence. In Isaiah verse 11:16 of the old testament states “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb.” This phrase is thought of as a metaphor of coming together of both the upper and lower under the Christian god (Religion 431), a stark contrast in comparison to the previous example and a throwback to an earlier time when the wolf represented more positive ideas. Another very prevalent notion in both the old and new testaments of the Christian Bible, is the wolf a tool of Satan and his henchmen. Wolves in this context are thought of as ravening or stealing away the souls of men.

    There was an interesting sermon in St. Ottilien recently, talking about sheep. The Pater, a son of a veterinary, said he liked sheep, but to him they are dumb. When a wolf comes to them they cuddle together, neither fighting nor running away they when they get killed.  They are powerless victims. He  referred to the German philosopher Nietzsche, who divided us into masters and slaves, in those that are prey (sheep) and those that are predators (wolves). Nietzsche wrote psychologically and physically, this divides our  human species.  The master types live by strength, creativity, independence, assertiveness, and related traits. They respect power, courage, boldness, risk-taking, even recklessness. It is natural for them to follow their own path no matter what, to rebel against social pressure and conformity. The slave types live in conformity. They tend to passivity, dependence, meekness. It is natural for them to stick together for a sense of security, just as herd animals do. (Beyond Good and Evil 264).

    The Pater reminded also to the claim the God is dead – but countered it with the resurrection of Jesus. Now, Nietzsche says, what we take to be moral depends on our biological nature—and different biological natures dictate different moral codes:

    What will seem good to you as a sheep? Being able to graze peacefully, sticking close together with others just like you, being part of the herd and not straying off. What will seem bad to you? Well, wolves will seem bad, and anything wolf-like, predatory, aggressive. But what if you are a wolf? Then strength, viciousness, and contempt for the sheep will come naturally to you and seem good. There is nothing the wolves and the sheep can agree on morally—their natures are different, as are their needs and goals, as is what feels good to them. The same point holds for humans. The divide between strong and weak, assertive and timid, runs straight through the human species. Moral codes, Nietzsche is here suggesting, are part of a biological type’s life strategy of survival, and the more we look at the history of morality evolutionarily and biologically, the more we are struck by the diversity of circumstances and how dramatically beliefs about values have changed across time. (Beyond Good and Evil 199).

    This is precisely our key problem culturally, the pater argued. This world  shows, that we once prized excellence and power and looked down upon the humble and the lowly. Now the meek, the common man, the kindly neighbor are the “good guys” while the aggressive, the powerful, the strong, the proud are “evil.”

    Jesus was warning the disciples in Matthew 10:16 when He says they are being, “sent out as sheep among wolves.”  The image and idea here is intense, but so is being a Christ follower in a world where those who follow Christ continually are facing some level of persecution. Jesus knew this and instead of telling the disciples follow me it will be easy; He let them know it will be just as dangerous, as it is for the sheep among wolves. This is the same for those who follow Christ today. As a Christ follower, a Christian, you already have the way out through salvation in Jesus through His death on the cross and resurrection by choosing it. Christians have the cure, but Jesus tells us, that while we are on this earth, those who follow Him will have difficulties bc this is not heaven this is earth where some people chose to say no to Christ and others believe and chose to follow Jesus and to those Jesus says, “Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Be as weary as snakes and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16

    Wolf archetypes and postmodern ideologies

    The ruling archetype does not stay the same forever, as is evident from the temporal limitations, that have been set to the hoped-for reign of peace, and the irreversible Europe.The archetype of the just, fatherly, benevolent ruler and the nursing mother had been shattered over the whole of northern Europe, as the present fate of the Christian churches bears witness.
    Even the Catholic Church can no longer afford trials of strength. Nihilistic Gods have attacked Christianity on a broad front. In communism, he is called equality and science, in national-socialism, he is called leader, and in capitalism he is called globalism.

    The wolf, seen as today’s financial predator, is naturally preying upon domesticated animals easily transforms into the metaphor of Satan seducing the innocents, drawing them away from their true nature into a state where they are compelled to acting against themselves and nature. This is perhaps the most frequent religious wolf related thought, which influenced Christianity and popular European culture. The sad fact though, is the image of the wolf in this context has little relation to anything based on reality and only serves not to enlighten thinking regarding this animal and its role in our world.

    Wolf archetypes and masculinism

    TheWolvesAnitWhatTheyUsedtoBe
    TheWolvesAintWhatTheyUsedtoBe – masculinism

    Masculinism refers to advocacy of the rights or needs of men and the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, regarded as typical of men. One of the  most prominent men’s rights advocates, was Warren Farrell. Wolves are very good archetypes  to define masculism and men. The wolf today still represents our “instinctive nature that is wild and natural” and suggests a wild and natural creature within every human, who is filled with good instincts, passionate creativity, and ageless knowing. This warrior within is seen as an archetype, that carries images, ideas, and unique behaviors for humankind. The gifts of wolfish nature come to man at birth, but society, in many instances, will attempt to civilize them into rigid roles, which will destroy the inner treasure and muffle the deep, messages of the soul. As a result, boys become trapped, over-domesticated, uncreative, and have fearful feelings. On a sociological level, societies become confused from kindergarten to the voting booth and bring Father or Mother figures against their interest in power, tangled and confused in narcistic gender issues. For men to find their soul, they will need to face their instinctive wild self so that they can become free, creative, and leading again. Of course the same can be true for females in unhealthy warrior culture, like German women who were  hysterical Hitler believers  or those today who proudly sacrifice their sons  as suicide bombers.

    Wolf archetypes and feminism

    WolfFeminism
    The Wolves ain’t what they used to be – feminism

    The wolf is also a strong female archetype. They have insticts too. Interesting enough typical Feminist ideology  divide  Masculists in a) in male feminists who promote “gender equality”,  a term which of course is shifting sand,  and b) the others as form of misogyny promoting “male superiority or dominance” by being opposed to their definition of equality. Based on this “only dead Indians are good Indians logic”, wolves are very bad role models to define feminism, but still good ones to describe female archetypes.  And there are good examples too. In her book, Women Who run With The Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype, Clarissa Pinkola Estes (1992) suggests, that healthy wolves and healthy women in particular share certain psychic characteristics: keen sensing, playful spirit, and a heightened capacity for devotion. Female wolves  and women by nature are relational, inquiring, and possess great endurance and strength. They are intuitive and concerned with their young, their mate and their pack and shamanic. There is the story of La Loba, the wolf woman. Her work was collecting bones of wolves and singing life into them. The story symbolizes the soul-voice. It conveys the truth of a woman’s healing power over anything, that is ailing or in need of restoration. Thus, the wolf is the representation of the Great Mother an archetype, which carries female images, ideas, and unique behaviors for humankind to help people to find their soul, and as warrior to help people to protect their survival.  You might remember the two articles, Four archetypes of the (fe)male. The wolf combines the duality of the Great Mother and Great Warrior. The wolf can thus be seen as a symbol on an intra-psychic level for a successful individuation. The spiritual Self consoles and integrates his Anima (or her Animus) and their shadow, which was created to adjust to collective norms . Individuation suggests a commitment to inner growth and development.

    Myth wolf – yesterday and today

    A short summary of wolf features prominently in a number of stories everywhere.

    Europe and Middle East:

    • Lycaon was the first king in Arcadia in Greece. He led a wicked life. The god Zeus came in disguise to a banquet at his palace and was disgusted to be served a child’s limbs. The god destroyed the palace and turned the king and his sons into wolves. Then he sent a flood to drown them all.
    •  The Egyptians had a wolf god, Wepwawet, whose name meant “he who opens the road.” He led kings in battle, and his image was carried through the streets of his town, Assiut, during a great annual feast. The wolf counted later also as God of the underworld . He was sort of demoted together with Osiris to the underworld.
    •  Early Biblical sources represented the wolf as destructive and associated with the evening (Jeremiah 5:6, and dishonest gain, bloodshed and destruction (Ezekiel 22:27, The Holy Bible). However, when the wolf and lamb were depicted lying down even though they were considered traditional enemies, together they represented peace and the coming Messianic rule (Isaiah 65:25 The Holy Bible).  Many saints tamed wolves, just as St. Francis of Assisi did.
    rome_shewolf_twins
    rome_shewolf_twins

    The founding of Rome – and thus, an entire empire – was based on the story of Romulus and Remus, orphaned twins who were raised by a she-wolf . The association of the wolf with the female was seen in the primitive Roman cult of Lupa or Feronia, which was inherited from Sabine matriarchy. It is based on best known Western myth  of Romulus and Remus: The wolf as a provider supposed to have nursed human infants. An ancient statue in the Lupercal grotto was later enhanced with images of the infants, Romulus and Remus were annually honored at the Lupercalia, the festival of the She-wolf, held every year in February, which was a multi-purpose event that celebrates the fertility of not only the livestock, but people as well. The “Jungle book” has a similar theme as the main character, “Mowgli”, is raised by wolves.The Romans thought it was lucky to see a wolf. The animal was sacred to Mars, god of war and protector of Rome. Julius Caesar’s victory over the Gauls at Sentinium, in 195 B.C., was attributed to a wolf, which was sent by Mars to frighten the enemy.The German Nibelungen legend tells how warriors used to eat roast wolf-meat to give themselves the courage of the wolf. Norse myths are all about valor, wolves have an important place, showing how they inspire fascination and fear in fighting men. When Wotan (Odin(, god of war and wisdom, sat on his throne at the palace of Valhalla, two great tame wolves lay at his feet,the symbol of his power and guarding the palace. The great wolves Geri and Freki, ate up the remains of the gods’ great feasts. In German fairy tales the big, bad wolf is referred to as being wild, tearing, snappish, grim and sanguinary. Grimm (German Romantic) even describes him as being the most evil creature of all animals in “The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats”.

    In the stories of the Ulster cycle, the Celtic goddess Morrighan is sometimes shown as a wolf. The connection with the wolf, along with the cow, suggests that in some areas, she may have been linked to fertility and land. Prior to her role as a warrior goddess, she was linked to sovereignty and kingship. In Scotland, the goddess known as Cailleach is often associated with wolf folklore. She is an old woman who brings destruction and winter with her, and rules the dark half of the year.

    Native America

    amorok

     The Inuit people of North America hold the great wolf Amarok in high regard. Amarok was a lone wolf, and did not travel with a pack. He was known for preying upon hunters foolish enough to go out at night. According to legend, Amarok came to the people when the caribou became so plentiful that the herd began to weaken and fall sick. Amarok came to prey upon the frail and ill caribou, thus allowing the herd to become healthy once more, so that man could hunt.
    There is a Lakota tale about a woman who was injured while traveling. She was found by a wolf pack, that took her in and nurtured her. During her time with them, she learned the ways of the wolves, and when she returned to her tribe, she used her newfound knowledge to help her people. In particular, she knew far before anyone else when a predator or enemy was approaching.
    A Cherokee tale tells the story of the dog and the wolf. Originally, Dog lived on the mountain, and Wolf lived beside the fire. When winter came, though, Dog got cold, so he came down and sent Wolf away from the fire. Wolf went to the mountains, and found that, he liked it there. Wolf prospered in the mountains, and formed a clan of his own, while Dog stayed by the fire with the people. Eventually, the people killed Wolf, but his brothers came down and took revenge.

    Asia

    Asian Wolves
    Asian Wolves

    The Turks and the fierce Mongols were enemies; but they both claimed to be descended from wolves. One young Turkish warrior, who alone survived after a Mongol raid, was rescued by a she-wolf and led by her to a secret earthly paradise in the mountains. They were married, and their children were led by a great grey wolf to the land which is now Turkey. The Mongol emperor Genghis Khan also claimed to be the son of a wolf. Besides Buddhism  and Nestorians, Mongols have held mainly Shamanic beliefs before they converted to Islam.

    In Turkey, the wolf is still held in high regard, and is seen in a similar light as to the Romans – the wolf Ashina Tuwu is the mother of the first of the great Khans. Also called Asena, she rescued an injured boy, nursed him back to health, and then bore him ten half-wolf half-human children.  Today the wolf is still seen as a symbol of sovereignty and leadership and used from the PKK (Kurdish Separation Movement)..

    The mountain people of Georgia, former part of the USSR, once thought, wolves had a society just like people. They were under the protection of a saint and were not thought of as wild animals. Hunters who killed a wolf wore mourning clothes as if they had killed a man.

    In ancient China, the Wolf is prominent in the Sky. The people believed, that eclipses of the sun were caused by a great sky-wolf eating up the sun. People beat drums and shot arrows at the sun to drive the animal away.  The Chinese saw the wolf also as a guardian of the heavenly palace. In Japan the wolf was admired for its ferocity, tenacity and swift attack. Also, they considered the wolf to be from heaven and to be venerated.

    Conclusion

    Myth is the foundation of life; it is the timeless pattern, the religious formula to which life shapes itself…Whereas in the life of mankind the mythical represents an early and primitive stage, in the life of an individual it represents a late and mature one. — Thomas Mann

    The wolf archetype may seen as great bridge between gods and evil,  male and female, patriarchy and matriarchy,  humans and Nietzsches “Uebermensch”. However, it has to be noted, that wolves live a traditional, wild archetype adjusted to nature. The wolf clearly represents the instincts, so the full and positive wolf  archetypes may be meaningless in today’s context. Or not?  Can be the wolf a weak warrior or a devouring mother, can the wolf sleep with the lambs? Prefer to a be lamb or a lone wolf?

    PRIMARY SOURCE APPARATUS TO BE USED

    Jungian Core Texts

    • CW 8 — On the Nature of the Psyche
    • CW 9/I — The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
    • CW 10 — Civilization in Transition (especially Wotan)
    • CW 11 — Psychology and Religion
    • CW 14 — Mysterium Coniunctionis (for transformation motifs)
    • Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932-1958 is a collection of correspondence between physicist Wolfgang Pauli and C. G Jung
    • CW 18 — THE SYMBOLIC LIFE MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS
    • McGuire, William (ed.) – C. G. Jung Speaking (Princeton, 1993) (for transformation motifs)
    • Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle UK, Edition 1985
    • Four Archetypes Mother Rebirth Spirit Trickster UK, Edition 1971
    • C. G. Jung Archetypen (dtv, Bd. 11)
    • Jung, C. G., Jacobi, J. (1971 ): Mensch und Seele. Zitate von C. G. Jung aus dem Gesamtwerk 1905 bis 1961. Olten: Walter
    • Jung in Context A Reader

    Jungian Secondary

    • Jolande Jacobi Die Psychologie von C. G. Jung. Olten: Walter Verlag, 1971
    • Der Mensch und seine Symbole. By Carl Gustav Jung (Hg.) , Marie-Louise von Franz, Joseph L. Henderson, Aniela Jaffé, and Jolande Jacobi. Olten Walter Verlag AG,1968
    • Aniela Jaffe Die Einheitswirklichkeit und das Schöpferische Erich Neumann und C-G. Jung
    • Wes Nisker, 1990 Crazy Wisdom
    • Jolande Jacobi,  Complex, Archetypes, Symbol in the Psychology of C.G. Jung, Bollingen Series Princton University Press, 1957

    Wolf Ethology

    • Of Wolves and Men, Barry Lopez 1978 Paperback 2024
    • European wolf recolonization studies ­ WWF Deutschland, Berlin
    • The International Wolf Center – science-based education
    • Farley Mowat Never Cry Wolf (1963) classic memoir of the Canadian naturalist
    • For visual de-demonization: Jim Brandenburg ‘White Wolf’, 1990 and ‘Bruder Wolf 1994
    • Mech, L. E. (1991). The way of the wolf. Stillwater: Voyageur Press.

    Mythological/Comparative Sources

    • Prose Edda / Poetic Edda
    • Histora Mundi Band 2 Frühe Hochkulturen
    • Histora Mundi Band 4 Römische Weltgeschichte und Christentum
    • Roman foundation myth sources
    • Mythologyof the American Nations
    • Turkic Asena materials
    • The Druids
    • Die Kelten
    • Indo-European canine symbolism
    • Egyptian funerary religion (Wepwawet)
    • Medieval werewolf trials and folklore, “Mac Tíre” (Son of the Earth)
    • The Ossory Werewolves: The Helpful Shape-Shifters

    References Symbols (philosophy, history )

    • Richard Wagner, Ring des Nibelungen und seine Symbole, Donnington (Transl)
    • Spaziergänge durch Nietzsches Sils-Maria, Raabe 1994
    • Nietzsche und Faschismus, Taureck Reclam, 2000
    • Nietzsche Philosophie als Kunst, Friedrich DTV, 1999
    • NietzscheSchriften
      • Die fröhliche Wissenschaft.
      • Also sprach Zarathustra (1883–1885)
      • Jenseits von Gut und Böse
      • Zur Genealogie der Moral
      • Der Antichrist
    • Acient Egypt, Silverman
    • Geschichte des Morgenlandes im Altertum,  Berlin, Historischer Verlag Baumgärtel (ca. 1904)
    • Mythology Comte, 1988
    • Geschichte Ägyptens, Breasted 1954 (Translaion)
    • Neue Jerusalm Bibel, Herder 2011/The holy Bible. King James Translation. (1947). Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.BishopB

    References secondary

    • Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs
    • Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation
    • The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species
    • Politics of Aristotle asserts excellence varies with social role, including gender.
    • The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex; Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993: ISBN 0-671-79349-7
    • The Liberated Man; Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993: ISBN 0-671-79349-7
    • Why Man are the way they are:  Warren Farrell, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1993: ISBN 0-671-79349-7
    • Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen(1991), Bantham
    • Iron John, Robert Bly (1992), Vintage Books
    • Sex Differences, Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy, Yves Christen
    • Raising a son by Don Elium and Jeanne Elum (1994);  Celetial Arts, Berceley
    • The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Christina Hoff Sommers ISBN 0-684-84956-9
    • Estes, C. P. (1992). Women who run with the wolves: Myths and stories of the wild Woman archetype. New York: Ballantine Books.
    • Neumann, E. (1955). The great mother. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    • Towery, T. L. (1997). The wisdom of wolves: Nature’s way to organizational success. Franklin, TN.: Wessex House publishing.
    • K. Theweleit (1978) Männerphantasien Verlag Roter Stern I and II

    Links

  • Jung’s Rebirth Archetypes and Transformation

    Jung’s Rebirth Archetypes and Transformation

    A  fellow blogger, SymbolReader, pointed out the Rebirth Archetypes in the latest James Bond movie “Skyfall”. In my last article I presented transformation as key element in  Tolkiens Lord of the Rings. Both triggered a brief follow up about the Rebirth Renovatio aspect of C.G. Jung’s Transformation Archetype – written in the Easter Night.

    Jung’s Rebirth Archetypes and Transformation

    Jung enumerates five plus one  different meanings of Rebirth:

    • Metempsychosis – transmigration of souls
    • Reincarnation –  continuity of personality (main Buddhist theme)
    • Resurrection  – reestablishment of human existence after death (main Christian theme)
    • Rebirth Renovatio – rebirth in the narrow sense within a span of a life with the implication of healing, improvement
    • Rebirth Transmutation  – such as transformation of a mortal in an immortal being
    • Participation in or witnessing of  a process of transformation – mystery of ceremony.

    Participation a process of transformation

    In Lord of the Rings I understood the latter. The transformation  (or the quest to counter  Mordor transforming the world in a hell ruled by the evil enforced by Orks)  takes place outside of the individual. In other words, Frodo has to take part in some rite of Transformation.

    Witnessing  a process of transformation – mystery of ceremony 

    Jung was, as Tolkien, leaning on the Catholic side (although Jung’s grandfather was a Free Manson and his Father an unconvincing  Protestant Pastor).  Jung meant here witnessing the transformation of a substance in ceremony such as a mass, e.g.  the mystery of the Eucharist.  It is of the five mysteries  the Church cannot explain, Catholics have to accept them on faith. Of course there is also a strong pagan mystery in it: The grace (more the curse) of immortality.  Jung refers to the Eleusinian Mysteries ceremonies held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone. based at Eleusis in ancient Greece (and every Easter in Washington State). Demeter’s rebirth is symbolic for the eternity of life that flows from generation to generation:

    Truly the blessed gods have proclaimed a most beautiful secret Death comes as a blessing to men (Elusian epitaph, quoted by C.G Jung).

    Resurrection  – reestablishment of human existence after death

    Today there is the mystery of the Easter Night – of  Jesus’ Resurrection.

    Rebirth “renovatio”

    I saw the DVD of Craig’s latest 007 flick, “Skyfall recently.  The plot has been kept relatively simple, when a hard drive listing all NATO operatives undercover in terrorist organizations is stolen, which cost M essentially her job.  Bond sets out to recover the drive,  this mission leads him to a man named Silva, who was once also (ab)used by M, questioning  Bond’s loyalty to M. This movie tells a quite intelligent story with the key characters given much more depth and layers and being less playful than usual (and better than the last two before).  In Skyfall,  Sam Mendes has provided us with more visual movie than action thriller combining old school Bond with a psychoanalytical twist. It was significant (and had at least a double meaning) to hear James Bond claim “resurrection” as his hobby. To me it was a more a rebirth in the narrow sense within a span of a life and with the implication of healing, improvement. Here is why.

    The movie opens with thrilling action, the Skyfall after he was shot bay another Agent (his Anima). This seemingly distressing outcome is critical to the plot, but looks like the end of Agent 007. In fact, the British Secret Service does think it is the end of him. Bond revels in the anonymity and decides to stay “dead.”  His mission upon his “resurrection” is to get revenge for what’s happened to him. He was killed by his mother, giving the order to shoot, causing the Skyfall.James Bond “dies” and falls into deep water, with his eyes closed, unconscious. The fall is mighty, like that of a FallenAngel.  Water is the symbol of the unconscious, the Female, back to the Uterus and of course of (Re)birth.

    Jung noted in his book Answer to Job,  Jahweh failed Job in this story in the Bible. Likewise M gave the order to sacrifice Bond.  In a way he understood how she manipulated and used him and let her be killed. That was his revenge. To be honest,  as a male Bond fan, I was relieved –  almost sighing to the villain: “just shoot her now”  to make her retire from the Bond series. Why? Well, l Bond movies were always more stereotypes than archetypes – that’s why they reflect the spirit of different times so well. And she was one too.  But she overextended her stay.  People realize today, women can be just as incompetent and ignorant as men – in politics and in corporations.  I am sure the Bond producer understood that as well, that not Craig, but she became the weak link in the last Bond movies.  Back to the roots: that was signalled by the choice of the car and Bonds new male Boss at the end of the movie. Anyway.

    James Bond isn’t a spokesman on moral issues and Craig always had more the appeal of the British under class lad, coming drunken out of a bar in  London Camden Town and vomiting on the side walk. I hated the scene where Bond dumped Mathis’s body in the dumpster after he died. After recent viewing of that earlier movie again, that scene really disturbed me. Dumping a dead friend into a dumpster, it just didn’t feel right… I’m sure there could have been a better way rather than dumping him with garbage at a nearby dumpster. But when he made this ressurection claim in that dry James Bond-ish way in Skyfall, it brought into a focus a major theme of the movie that is worth considering especially in the Easter night: coming back after everyone thought he was gone forever. And I changed my opinion, this guy finally gave his movie character  depth. The plot and action lack, but visuals and symbolism is superior.

    I agree with “symbolreader” the story is about  Bond’s redemption and resurrection – not revenge.  But there is also the story of Job in there, with an less than godly Jahweh.  Resurrection  is a religious word. The subject of resurrection is generally restricted to spiritual conversation. Contrast this, then, with the Christian resurrection. The genuine resurrection. That is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole point of Jesus’ death and resurrection was the opposite of revenge.

    • The point was restoration.  Jahweh failed us and humankind rejected Him.  He wanted to reunite with us. So he gave his Son Jesus to pay the penalty for our infraction.
    • Our rejection of God caused a huge gulf between Him and us. Jesus gave up His life and died to pay the price for our sin. With the penalty paid, we could be joined in relationship again with God. The role of the Son, Jesus, was (and is) to restore. That’s why we call Him Savior. He saved us. He brought us back to God.

    When Bond returns, he is physically humiliated but spiritualized and mentally stronger. Although an oprphan,  he is able to separate himself  from his (cruel and more and more incapable) surrogate mother aptly named M. In a way, he accepted or at least was relieved that his Shadow Silva killed her.

  • Jungian Archetype Checklist for Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

    Jungian Archetype Checklist for Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

    In his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien created what he called a “new mythos”. There is undoubtedly much in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings that invites us seeing it through the Jungian framework.  However, on a closer look, comparatively few archetypes are present, and the main protagonist’s (Frodo’s) individuation arguably fails. A Jungian view must offer more than “In a fairy land lived a halfling who, together with some helper-figures, became a wiser and individuated hobbit’.  On the first glance (and even on the second) Frodo listens more to his shadow than to his Anima – if he has an own Anima at all.

    Now, how do we avoid  the “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail“, problem?  By systematically testing elements in the Jungian framework on its applicability to the Lord of the Ring and comparing the results with similar elements  in Richards Wagner “Ring Cycle”. The result is surprising and I hope a bit entertaining.

    Where is Frodo’s Anima?

    anima
    anima

    The story, set in a world Tolkien called Middle-earth, puts forth a possible alternative past for our Earth, one that could have occurred before our written history began.  Tolkien was fascinated with the pre-Christian mythology of northern Europe. To make his story, he pulled elements from these myths. He also imbued it with elements from his own Catholic faith. The story follows a basic plot of a heroic quest. And here it gets meager for Frodo in regards to individuation and Anima.  Without doubt Gollum is Frodo’s shadow. When the Fellowship goes out into the evil lands, passes the trials of Caradhras, the Wargs, and the Balrog, they encounter in Lothlorien  a fair and terrifying Anima.  Galadriel, who sees into one’s heart and forces people to look honestly at themselves, to see the shadow within, giving Frodos followers a hint of individuation – the initial dream.

    While the characters with most depth are Hobbits,  I am not quite sure, if you can interpret Frodo’s quest as his individuation, self-actualization and search for enlightenment. Without blasphemy, one may find a resemblance to Jesus’ hesitation to take the cross. Most of Tolkien’s writings can perceived in the dualistic view of good and evil in distinct ‘mythic’ flavor of a very personal evil and even an evil empire.  However, unlike in  opera or theatre, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is not myth per se, but a cleverly fabricated  and artistically elaborated piece of art,  more for effect than symbolic.

    Many of Tolkien’s protagonists resemble thus somewhat more shallow characters of fairy stories, than those, say in Wagner’s Ring,  which Jungian’s generally easily find representation of the collective unconscious. Tolkien’s  (human) figures are more theatric  than archetypal images – or  archetypal per se (templates) :  Sure, the King(s), the Warrior and the  Wizard are quite obvious and map easily and directly to Jung’s “standard” archetypal images.  But all in all it is more Shakespeare than Wagner. Why then, does Lord of the Rings have such an overwhelming emotional impact on me and on others?  Precisely of that. For many of us, the simple identification with the most obvious Jungian archetypal images is the unconsciously response to a typical hero quest and the lure of alchemy. Take the wizard Gandalf, his name was part of 50 % of the root passwords in Unix systems, long before the movie came out. To the younger and/or non-techies, Unix was predecessor of Android OS and is after a rebirth in Linux still base of most Internet infrastructure.

    Tolkien’s “brave old world” in Lord of the Rings

    galadriel
    galadriel

    As we experience today really, “The End of an Age,”  people’s attitude toward religion in the contemporary West (true more than Europe than the United States) has changed. The Hobbit’s Shire creates a suitable sugary pagan (or pseudo religious) setting similar to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s understanding of “good” nature and savage before Christianity and science took over.  And as Campbell puts it, “It has always been the prime function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit.” This is why “Lord of the Rings” speaks as deeply to people who share neither Tolkien’s faith nor his opinions as it does to those who do. It transcends the personal and the particular to touch us all.  As a put off,  it is often argued that the “analytical psychology” developed by C. G. Jung in the early years of the last century was always more religion than a science anyway. Jung was intrigued by the imagery of dreams and waking visions experienced both by himself and his patients, and how this same symbolic imagery appeared repeatedly in religion, mythology and alchemy–areas of which the patients in question were most often ignorant. His concept of archetypes and archetypal imagery has permeated our culture, especially in the arts and humanities.  Hence, an ‘emotional response problem is expected in Tolkien’s approach. It is one thing to like a piece of art, but another to analyse and assess it as a collective unconscious. One may value Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings as a book of undoubted literary quality, whereas even more respond enthusiastically to a trashy sequential  also by another British. Lord of the Rings especially seems to have ‘spoken’ to many of its readers via its archetypal images and the “American National Park” motifs. I have heard, that he had traveled to the US – when I moved to the states and saw them for the first time I was able to map  my own, self created images having read the book 10 years before.

    Jungian framework and art

    I want to suppress the understandable desire to prove that the book I love is also a ‘good’ book in a literary terms but look at it in another way of exploring the reader’s (my) psyche.   Jungian literary criticism is, in my opinion, a method very well suited  exploring the psychological dimension of fiction. I have written about, say Herman Hesse,  Max Frisch.  Both obviously succeeded in creating a work of art rooted in the Western tradition that ‘speaks’ to millions of readers, and a Jungian approach can give a reason for this success, namely that it constitutes a compensatory set of archetypal images that transcend age and culture for a greater balance. Yet, the Jungian framework also harbours some grave dangers – the subject of the analysis becomes too easily confused with the concepts and terminology of what should be the meta-language; the ‘critical’ distance between ‘theory’ and ‘object’ is often dangerously small and causes us to confuse and mix the two levels.  It becomes post-modern mud like those ‘history studies’ blissfully ignoring sources, parallels and analogues and mixing facts and opinion. I use the  Encyclopedia of Arda to keep me honest about the content, Timothy R. O’Neill’s  book “The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth” of 1979 and Wagner’s Ring and Its Symbols” originally published 1984 from the English musicologist Robert Donington, both major landmarks in the uncovering mythical-archetypal structures in art. I found little other (and better) than that.  O’Neill’s 1979 book-length study comes from an army psychologist but is not based on professional training in analytical psychology. I am also  aware of the study of  Jungian analyst Pia Skogemann “Where the Shadows lie” in 2009.

    The Heroic Journey

    Tolkien started out just to write a sequel to The Hobbit.  Tolkien tells us in the Foreword to The Lord of the Rings that “the tale grew in the telling” into something much larger, darker, and complicated than his original intent. At the end of his first draft of Chapter III, Tolkien wrote to his publisher that the story “has taken an unpremeditated turn.” By the time he was writing Chapter VII, he reported that “It is now flowing along, and getting out of hand . . . [it] progresses towards quite unforeseen goals.” When Faramir appeared, Tolkien reported to his son that “I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him . . . but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien . . .” Later he said “Gollum continues to develop into a most intriguing character.”The Lord of the Rings follows the basic plot of the hero’s journey.

    Night Journey
    Night Journey

    Joseph Campbell recognized a basic pattern in many of those  narratives and has named those necessary stages to this journey:

    • Separation and departure from the safe haven of home or childhood,
    • Initiation,
    • The Fight or the underworld,
    • Return and reintegration.

    To accomplish his quest, the hero will need to call on his own strengths. These qualities are represented as companions with different qualities.  Heroes are almost always the most unlikely person possible. Each time Frodo and Sam begin another stage of their journey, they encounter one or more threshold guardians (wise men or wise women).

    Spot the archetype

    The method is playing “spot the archetype” with Tolkien’s characters is a game that many scholars have played with relish – functional complexes or archetypes as Ego, Shadow, Anima and Self and collective archetypes  as Warrior, Magician, Hero,  King, among others.

    Archetypes (per se) are described as structural templates  in the collective unconscious, invisible nuclear elements and potential carrier of meaning. C.G. Jung stresses the point that aarchetypes are not inherited but only structural patterns of potential representation. When they are touched by the light of the conscious mind they may become in the lower plane instincts and the higher realm images. Archetypes (not per se!) may be equated with complexes, particularly the those of personal unconscious (like shadow) which are often refered as functional complexes.

    Complexes according to C.G. Jung are described as sources of intensity or energy around a nucleus ( an archetype per se) which may drain (or provide) energy and integrity from/to the conscious Ego and are typically in the personal unconscious but also in the collective unconscious,  Jolande Jacobi describes the “complex” as a node of unconscious feelings and beliefs, detectable only indirectly, through behavior.

    Symbols are perceptible to the conscious mind and are for the most part a representation of archetypes per se conscious mind. Obviously they can be inherited and they my personal or collective as source of all mythic, symbolic and dream representations. This mankind’s experience and knowledge is  not available directly — only its images and created patterns can become manifest as symbols potentially unlimited in number and variety. Symbols are the core of our culture being the universal patterns of myth, religious symbols and Tolkien.

    Symbols in Lord of the Rings

    Though there are many symbols in the story, four symbols of personal power are central to our theme:

    • The evil ring, and the relationship with the other rings.
    • The phial of light.
    • The invisibility cloak, confers the power to change but it also entails the power to deceive.
    • The sword, stinger,  the weapon for the heroic struggle against the Orks.

    The number four is very significant in Jung’s analytical psychology.Jung loves the number four.  One can compare the three Elven rings plus the One Ring to Jung’s analysis of the Christian age in the light of alchemical symbolism, with the good Trinity and the hidden (evil) or later in live (female) fourth. by Pia Skogemann argues that the Fellowship is not really nine but eight, divided into two quaternities.

    Functional Archetypes

    The total psyche: (Mantra - Jolande Jacobi "The psychology of C.G. Jung"
    The total psyche: (Mantra – Jolande Jacobi “The psychology of C.G. Jung”

    The Ego and the Self are terms which are often interchangeably used.  The psychological term Ego is the center of consciousness and ensures the physical survival . Ego often has an extended meaning in the spiritual language and referrers in general terms to an obstacle for Self realization.

    Jung distinguishes sharply between Ego and Self and differentiates the unconscious thoughts and feelings of both types of memories: the ones we can remember easily and those who are suppressed for some reason. In addition he introduced the collective unconscious, which belongs to the common humanity, as part of an individual psyche.

    The Ego

    Frodo and the Shire express the realm of Ego.  The Ring is the Ego inflation  The return of the ring into the deep currents of the fire  completes this life cycle. The self is made whole. The cognitive conscious world of Ego is reconciled with its spiritual origin; the Self is reconciled. Howver, the Ego must also be overcome and accept the shadow. When Galadriel shows Boromir his shadow, he refuses to see. As C.G. Jung said, people would do anything to avoid admitting  failings and working to overcome them. This is part of the power of the shadow. Frodo passes this test, but the price is loosing himself, dissolving the Ego.

    Animus and Anima

    galadrielAndFrodo
    galadrielAndFrodo

    It has been noted, the beautiful Galadriel, who forces people to look at themselves, is the primary Anima. Through her, Gimli realizes that not material wealth but  love is the highest form, Merry and Pippin begin to grow up and take responsibility,  Sam makes his final commitment to the quest going with Frodo all the way and Legolas, another Elf answers the call to action and joins the fellowship. Boromir fails this test.

    Frodo represents the archetypal hero of the Lord of the Rings, but I am missing a dedicated love (or female) who represents the necessary union between the conscious realm and the realm of his Anima. He does not come close to her, and thats in my opinion why he in end fails on the mountain of doom to give up the ring.  The gifts from Galadriecome with the words: “And you, Ringbearer’ she said, turning to Frodo. ‘I come to you last who are not last in my thoughts. For you I have prepared this.’ She held up a small crystal phial: it glittered as she moved it and rays of white light sprang from her hand. ‘In this phial,’ she said,’ is caught the light of Earendil’s star, set amid the waters of my fountain. It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.  Frodo took the phial, and  Stinger (that symbol should be clear) and the dangerous female become again “like a queen,  fair and beautiful.”  Only later  in Golums’s death we see him freed by the burning away of his accepted shadow. Love might be found between Aragorn and Arwen. When Arwen and Aragorn commit to each other forever,  Arwen chooses to turn and embrace her shadow, her human side, and remain in Middle-earth. The rest of Elvendom chooses to remain within the rapidly shrinking circles of light until finally they lose the world entirely. Arwen, by committing to Aragorn, gives him the inspiration to complete his part of the quest. Aragorn becomes through her the leader he is meant to be.

    shadow
    shadow

    The Shadow

    In the realm of Shadow, represented in Lord of the Rings by Gollum reside rejection, frustration, anger, hate, evil. According to Jung, we all must struggle with our shadow. The shadow is our unconscious self, all the parts of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge or are shamed by. The more we try to flee from or ignore the shadow, the more it grows and the more power it gains over us. To master the shadow, we need to stop running, turn, and face it. “The hero . . . must realize that the shadow exists and that he can draw strength from it. He must come to terms with its destructive powers if he is to become sufficiently terrible to overcome it. Gollum is Frodo’s shadow made manifest. He represents Frodo’s biggest fear: that he will succumb to the Ring’s siren call. Frodo fears and even hates Gollum up until the moment he actually meets the wretched creature. Once he sees Gollum in the light of day, his heart is moved to compassion. We cannot gain mastery over our weaknesses until we first admit that we have them and then forgive ourselves for that. Only then can we see clearly how to overcome them. Looking at Gollum, Frodo feels pity. Out of this pity he finds the strength to control Gollum — who even calls him “master” — and resist the lure of the Ring.

    The Self

    To me Samin Lord of the Rings represent the Self.  He is the only one who can resists the ring. In the end Frodo leaves the shire and Sam inherits it.  The ring itself represents for us the lure of gold, or lust of power. Possession of the ring confers power over the world. We set out to relate the life-cycle of the ring to the life-cycle of the psyche. The circle of a ring suggests how this might be done. The story begins in the realm of the Self, which has its origin in the value of life. O’Neil’s book identifies (wrongly)  the thoroughly evil “One Ring” with the Self, based on its superficial symbolic characteristics. Sam is a much more satisfying and nuanced view of both of the Self archetype.

    The Persona

    In Wagner’s The Valkyrie teach in “The Ring” a fundamental cultural lessons about society. I do not really see a complement in Lord of the Rings.

    Autonomous Complex

    It is on of the effects of the Ring–“the normal identity disappears and is taken over by the norms and values of autonomous complex (The Ring) takes over. Gollum is clearly an overpowered Ego becoming a merge of Shadow and an autonomous Complex. In one scene his remaining  good and bad side even talk even to each other.

    Archetypes of Transformation (Rebirth)

    The landscape of Middle-earth and the actual journey of the Fellowship have particular archetypal significance : rivers and forests; descent (death and rebirth); changing of the wind; and man-made towers. Significant are borders, crossroads, river crossings and other points of decision, and their relationship to the unconscious.  Jung enumerates five plus one  different meanings of Rebirth:

    • Metempsychosis – transmigration of souls
    • Reincarnation –  continuity of personality (main Buddhist theme)
    • Resurrection  – reestablishment of human existence after death (main Christian theme)
    • Rebirth Renovatio – rebirth in the narrow sense within a span of a life with the implication of healing, improvement
    • Rebirth Transmutation  – such as transformation of a mortal in an immortal being
    • Participation in a process of transformation.

    In Lord of the Rings I see the latter. The transformation  (or the quest to counter  Mordor transforming the world in a hell ruled by the evil enforced by Orks)  takes place outside of the individual. In other words, Frodo has to take part in some rite of Transformation. Jung was, as Tolkien, leaning Catholic (although Jung’s grandfather was a Free Manson and his Father an unconvincing  Protestant Pastor).  Jung meant witnessing the transformation of a substance in ceremony such as a mass, e.g.  the mystery of the Eucharist. It is of the five mysteries  the Church cannot explain,Catholics have to accept them on faith. Of course there is also a strong pagan mystery in it: The grace (more the curse) of immortality.  Jung refers to the Eleusinian Mysteries ceremonies held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone. based at Eleusis in ancient Greece (and every Easter in Washington State). Demeter’s rebirth is symbolic for the eternity of life that flows from generation to generation:

    Truly the blessed gods have proclaimed a most beautiful secret Death comes as a blessing to men (Elusian epitaph, quoted by C.G Jung).

    Collective Archetypes

    In his book  Four Archetypes C. G. Jung refers to the Mother, Rebirth, Spirit and Trickster. The mother is just very brief present in the second book (the self sacrifice) and at the very end when Sam becomes father. There are strong women visible, but the narrative is a men’s world. As presented above, one of the five aspects of the Transformation archetype participation in a transformation – is the core of the Narrative. In addition, “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover – Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine” ,  a C. G. Jung based interpretation of masculine behavior is very applicable to the human fictional characters ´Tolkien.  All four representations of the archetypes have one positive (right amount) and 2 negative poles (deficit or surplus). For example, the positive King archetype rules his world wise whereas the negative Kings are the weakling and the tyrant. The Hero or warrior archetype is a timeless, present in all art and global. Two examples of my articles: Jianghu seen as Archetypes defined by C.G. Jung (Magician, King, Lover, Warrior and Hero) and Wagner’s Ring, Richard Wagner from Scene to Scene utilizing C.G. Jung.

    C_G_JUNG_FEMALE_ARCHETYPES
    C_G_JUNGFEMALE and MALE ARCHETYPES

    The Magician

    The Magician, Trickster or Wise Man, represents Logos according to Jung a masculine principle, is sees the unseen. He is like Gandalf the mediator and communicator of secret knowledge, the healer, technologist, teacher, and spiritual. A wizard or a witch, a man or woman of power, advises and sometimes accompanies the hero . This person represents supernatural aid and is another sign that the quest is guided and blessed. But we do not see Gandalf’s true power until Frodo and Sam have gone on without him. Magician, however, always has a tendency to abuse his power, being the negative Magician, the manipulator like Sauron, the most powerful of the wizards,. But Saruman has let his shadow control him. He lies to others and to himself about his true motives. Lies are always a sign that the shadow is in control.

    The King

    The King is the life giver and the most important responsible for the safety and well being. The book quotes from history and art that every society must have king or leader who is entrusted with guiding his people to success and comfort. The benefits and virtues of the king are many, but the responsibilities are many as well. And if the king fails in his duties he is traditionally disposed. The shadows sides are tyrant and the weakling.  The Aragon of volume III may be seen as a personification of the the King.  The self-effacing Ranger, Strider, learns to embrace his heritage and destiny. He has to rise above his self-doubts and take on his rightful role as the King of Men, which he does on the plains of Rohan: It is only after he declares himself openly to Eomer and takes his full power that Aragorn can look Sauron in the face and not be conquered.

    The Warrior (or Hero)

    The Warrior is a destroyer who destroys the enemies and clears a space for renewal and change. The prototype of the warrior is the soldier. In The Lord of the Rings, we have many heroes (and even more warriors), but the two primary heroes are Frodo and Sam. Both express aspects of the archetypal hero. Frodo is an orphan and the adopted and spiritual heir of Bilbo Baggins, who himself does not quite fit in the Shire. Frodo appears to be a normal hobbit up until Bilbo’s disappearance. The Warrior is besides the Wizard  the most viable of the archetypes.  It is vital that this quest be accomplished not by God or agents of God, but by a mortal being. And the hero must fulfill the quest using his own strengths alone. This is the only way he can learn what those strengths are. The lesson for us here is that when we find ourselves in great trouble, not to despair, for that’s when we’ll learn who we really are. The hero must make a formal commitment. His aggressiveness are a highly needed characteristic responsible for his achievements and those of middle earth. Properly accessed, the Warrior provides self-discipline, and protects. The two shadow sides of the Hero are the Sadist of Mordor, the Orks.  The other pole, the Masochist, is not visible in Lord of the Ring.

    The Lover

     The Lover like the feminine principle Eros manifests energy and fertility of the nature. The gendering of Eros and Logos and synergy is a consequence of Jung’s anima/animus synergy. Generally the Lovers are represented by the elves, easy with our own deepest and most central values and visions, and with others. Those are archetypal parents, people and more power and wisdom than the hero does at this stage of his development offer place of safety where the hobbits can relax and  and give gifts to help the hobbits on their way. At the Council of Elrond, the true scope of the quest is made clear: to take the Ring to Mount Doom and destroy it. Frodo is still hoping that the quest is not his. But the wise Elves, brave Men, and strong Dwarves sit in silence. I will take the Ring,” says Frodo, “though I do not know the way.”

    In King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, a point has been made that every man has to have those (ideally) balanced archetypes.  Jolande Jacobi’s book gives  also a good explanation of how archetypes, complexes and symbols are perceived, interact with each other and gain autonomous power.

    Jungian concepts

    Furthermore one has to deal with the so-called archetypes of transformation and  more general concepts. Tolkien resembles individuation,  how humans develop into mature, emotionally healthy adults. C. G. Jung: “. . . the essential function of the heroic myth is the development of the individual’s ego-consciousness — his awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses — in a manner that will equip him for the arduous tasks with which life confronts him.”

    Personal Layers
    Personal Layers

    Jungian Types

     Skogemann examines the four hobbits as “team consciousness” with each individual representing one of the four Jungian psychological functions (thinking, intuition, sensation, feeling).  Repeated literal losses of consciousness and subsequent awakening of the hobbits correlate with the awakening of the various psychological functions. That may be the case,  but this team building aproach is ultimatly not helping much.

    Individuation

     The Jungian concept of individuation is tailor-made for studying the coming-of-age story, and The Lord of the Rings is rife with such stories. Frodo and Sam an descent into the Underworld. This is the descent into the darkest parts of one’s own soul. Before the hero can face the One problem, or destroy the One Ring, he has to master his own shadow. Frodo allows his shadow Gollum to be his guide through the Underworld. They traverse the Dead Marshes and Shelob’s tunnel. Here, Frodo is betrayed by Gollum and appears to die. This is Sam’s crisis, that he would not be able to protect Mr. Frodo.  But he resists the Ring, takes on a tower full of Orcs, and rescues Frodo. The initiation continues as Frodo and Sam are tempered by their passage through the shadow lands of Mordor. Frodo, who is still struggling with his shadow, cannot see anything beyond that. But Sam, here almost being Frodo’s Ego has gained perspective. Finally they reach Mount Doom. At the ultimate moment, Frodo succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and claims it for his own. However, his earlier compassion for this failing saves Frodo from a terrible fate. Because of both Sam and Gollum the quest of Frodo can be fulfilled.

    Eternity and Judgment Day

    The Ego, the Self and God
    The Ego, the Self and God – Individuation and Transcendence

    Once the quest in Lord of the Rings has been fulfilled, supernatural power can be used freely, so Gandalf and the Eagles can save Frodo and Sam as Mount Doom erupts and Barad-dur collapses. Barad-dur crumbling means Sauron has been completely defeated.

    The World Tree, the Tree of Life, has bloomed. This tree only blooms in the garden where there is no shadow. The restoration of the White Tree in Gondor and the presence of the mallorn in the Shire let us know that things are truly balanced and healed. After wholeness has been restored, it is time for unions. Sam marries Rosie,  Eowyn and Faramir marry and solidify the ties between Gondor and Rohan. And Aragorn, now King Elessar, marries Arwen. This is the Great Marriage, the union of the mortal hero with the immortal goddess, that ensures that the world will be renewed.

    The time for judgment has come. Aragorn sits in judgment on Men, and his decisions reflect the wisdom and mercy of the returned King the world is now ready for. Sauron is condemmed to endless existence as a “mere shadow of malice.  Saruman’s fate turns out to be the same as that of the master he served and betrayed. Those who cannot become whole and balanced, who remain in the power of their shadows, are cast out from the reborn world.

    No marriage forFrodo. But he said to Gandalf: “At last I understand why we have waited! This is the ending.” and finally leaves Middle-earth. This can be interpreted two ways. In a first interpretation, Frodo did, in a sense, fail.  Secondly his disappearing resmbles essentially the dissolving of his ego, which is one common way to see individuation (see The Death of the Ego as prerequisite to find God). In any case, Frodo’s fate is bittersweet. Sam becomes Frodo’s spiritual and material heir – the Self.  He also becomes a parent, symbolic of true maturity. It was a simple story, but had all ingredients of C. G. Jung’s Red Book ( C. G. Jung’s Red Book in a hurry – Narrative)

    Conclusion

    Analytical psychology acknowledges the importance of the spiritual life, but is not tied to a specific religion. Those focused on Tolkien as a Christian author might find Jung’s  alternative psychological explanations thought-provoking.  Like Wagner’s Ring, Tolkien starts with a world of  animistic beliefs threatened by modern science, a trajectory that leaves people cut off from the idea of nature. It may very well be, that Tolkien’s and Jung’s early experiences with the Perilous Realm (whether one calls it Catholic Mystic or the Unconscious) had much in common, even the style of the language in which their experiences were expressed. In his “Red Book” Jung found such language to be a characteristic of archetypes. Both, Jung and Tolkien had serious problem with their era and its lack of any means of spiritual transformation, overwhelmed by science and technology. The Lord of the Rings is and the Red Book not an allegory of World Wars, however World War II affected the conception and portrayal of Mordor and the Red Book anticipated the streams of blood in World War I.

    Sources

    • O’Neill, Timothy R. The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien and the Archetypes of Middle-earth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979
    • Robert Donington, Wagner’s Ring and Its Symbols”,  originally published 1984  both antiquaries
    • Lord of the Rings: The Mythology of Power von Jane Chance
    • Jung, Carl. Aion. Collected Works v. 9ii

    Links

  • Last Print Newsweek – some thought on New Years Eve 2012/13.

    Last Print Newsweek – some thought on New Years Eve 2012/13.

    Today I received the last print of the Newsweek. From now on all my information (and 5% of the new books) will be electronically, that is to say via Internet. I discarded all unreliable sources like TV and local newspaper long ago. Time wasters. Now all have been  replaced by Blogs, Skype Video, Twitter, WhisperNet and Internet in various shades including Internet Radio. That trend indicates an enormous fragmentation of information seekers and a lot of work for them. Even more time consuming, because often it means checking raw information. In my case all what has been kept is Newsweek, the Economist and a Zürich daily newspaper besides from some science magazines. I see no big difference between blogs and so called quality journalism and prefer free unprocessed information. With unprocessed Information one knows the need  to check facts and analyze them. In todays real-time journalism, declaring what one won’t report can be just as important as what one will. However, with the paper goes also last illusion of credibility.I am careful with the net – always double check with the help of (old) books. Philosopher Paul Ricoeur has defined history as “a story about the past told to the present for present purposes” and that is more than ever true in the net and any media.

    “Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not.“― C.G. Jung
    “Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not.“― C.G. Jung

    The evolution of what media theorist  have called “networked journalism” has made the business of news much more chaotic, since it now consists of thousands of voices instead of just a few prominent ones who happen to have the connections to make themselves heard. If there is a growth area in media, it is in the field of “curated news,” which needs real-time filters verify and re-distribute the news that comes in from tens of thousands of sources to present a coherent picture of what is happening on the ground.  Mainstream media outlets would like to play a key role in the dissemination of news during such events (however journalists just  tend to retweet other journalists more often than they do non-mainstream sources just like copycat newswire and government briefing info). That worked well in Egypt during the revolution in February, but not in more chaotic (or controlled) Syria. Reality can be twisted by the media. Largely sanitized and devalued, it is too often spoon fed to the public by mainstream outfits whose mission is to coerce us into sharing their values. To make us feel good about the way we’re increasingly pawns for global so-called elites. Complicit in exploiting planet and people, preparing us gently for a corporate world government. Will the media ever explain how the governments of the West are party-political stitch-ups, apologists and legitimizers, public relation and lobby managers for the global finance?

    It’s interesting to note that with the advent of the Internet and all other new alternatives, they have not had significant impact on the traditional mediums, except for terristic radio, which was declining before these (new mediums) arrived. But now, with Internet radio, they too can be heard globally.  Americans 2012 spend more than 33 hours per week watching video across the screens, according to the latest Nielsen Cross-Platform Report. Almost the same proportion of the population is reading newspapers and magazines and the vast majority still watching commercial television – but it’s what is happening underneath these overall figures that is critical. For instance, whilst newspapers have held ground in readership, the humble newspaper format has morphed into non paper issues  – Newsweek as a credible early adopter of that transition – and, sometimes will change into readers-per-copy. That is raising the question “Does anyone still read the same newspaper from cover to cover?”

    What is today the difference between a good quality blog and a non-paper news outfit, say like The Daily Beast / Newsweek (which I still give a lot of credit)? Little? One example,  CNN on the news about Syria: The news come unprocessed and unilateral from so-called activists. Their clips feel like CIA embedded journalism sometimes intellectually insulting. The news reports from Europe’s “State-TV” and conforming newspaper is no inch better: plain one-sided pro-EU propaganda grossly distorting the facts. As we look at the way news and information flows in this new world of social networks, and what  has been called “random acts of journalism” by those who may not even see themselves as journalists, it’s easy to get distracted by how chaotic the process seems, and how difficult it is to separate the signal from the noise. But more information is better — even if it requires new skills on the part of us when it comes to filtering that information — and journalism, as once pointed out, tends to get better when more people do it. I am convinced today any free and critical citizen will (and must) strive to be a journalist. The official lies pile up so fast in Europe, US and Middle East you need to have wings to stay above it.

    trust_the_lies_not_the-truth.
    trust_the_lies_not_the-truth.

    Today media are top notch blogs to me. Most media not even that anymore. In cases where I knew by chance the background, it seemed to me the quality press does definitely not care more than social media on the whole about checking sources or presenting the facts. In the economic crises, the lies distributed by the media are so evident to anyone, I started to process numbers and ignore politicians (and mass media). Newsweek is a perfect example that  new media will not simply replace old media, but rather will learn to interact with it in a complex relationship which is called “convergence culture.” Thus the move is not primarily a technological revolution but more a cultural shift, dependent on the l bidirectional and active participation of the information sources and sinks  working in a social dynamic. Today in many internet newspaper sites there is more information in the comment area than in the article, that means like many bookstores before Amazon, those journalists are living deads in their profession.

    Hidden Censorship
    Hidden Censorship

    As I said before in another of my blogs, it is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective, on not touched by the writer’s previous experiences or interests. It is verifiable by looking up facts numbers or performing mathematical calculations. Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the writer. It is, I am sorry to say, also an element of trust and hunch. But often one knows a bit about a country or an event. If a source lies once, discard it. After all Journalists get paid and competition is fierce. The random journalist is like the court jester, he has no official interest or stakes. He or she will have opinions but not lie to get a pay cheque. In large media organizations, journalists and writers trained in critical thinking, analysis, research, and freedom of information values must undergo acculturation to the “common sense” of their organizational structure in order to remain employed. Understandings regarding objective reporting, standards of critical inquiry, sociopolitical perspectives, conflict of interests, and other abstract values are organizationally created and interpreted to new employees as “the way we do things.” These organizational values are understood instinctively through both word and  positive feedback  for the new employee’s advancement and promotion (if they bend or omit the truth).After all, there is nothing illogical about this process. Monetary capital seeks the most profitable return on investment, and media/information technology properties are seen as the future growth market of the world. Furthermore lots of stakeholder money belongs to cultural opinionated and access to the powerful needs to be earned. Literature and fine art is similar, one is able to see better things in self press blogs not censored by marketing than the contemporary stuff which hangs and sits in plushy museums.

    One thought and lot of credit to WordPress, they are culture changer too. I love to fly with them. I started this Blog just for myself and this blog got about 10,000 views in 2012. As the report encourages, “if every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 16 years to get that many views”. I guess, on my topic some sort of niche, it is not too bad. I thank my readers for the interest. What is equally important to me – the readers came from 102 countries in all. Most visitors came from Germany. The United States & Switzerland were not far behind. One top of this I learned a lot from my fellow bloggers. I am interested in cultures, to reach out globally – more modest to be understood globally – is one of my major goals.

    The last day of the year - Walk in the Park
    The last day of the year – Walk in the Park

    Thanks for an exiting year. I started this Blog to sort my thoughts. I am “wordly” as well as visual. In the this year I have met people who gave me complete new insights, I could “watch” bloggers with excellent writing style and excellent photographers and learn from them. I will keep Newsweek if they keep up their quality, but still feel a bit sad not having a paper copy anymore. Time is critical, I know – in the words of Pope Benedict the XVI:

    The faster we can move, the more efficient our time-saving appliances become, the less time we have. And God? The question of God never seems urgent. Our time is already completely full. But matters go deeper still. Does God actually have a place in our thinking? Our process of thinking is structured in such a way that he simply ought not to exist. Even if he seems to knock at the door of our thinking, he has to be explained away. If thinking is to be taken seriously, it must be structured in such a way that the “God hypothesis” becomes superfluous. There is no room for him. Not even in our feelings and desires is there any room for him. We want ourselves. We want what we can seize hold of, we want happiness that is within our reach, we want our plans and purposes to succeed. We are so “full” of ourselves that there is no room left for God. And that means there is no room for others either, for children, for the poor, for the stranger.

  • Art and violence – evil and free will

    Art and violence – evil and free will

    Whether we like to admit it or not, we always have a choice to do evil. We can deny it as much as we want. We’re always as free as we want. There was a well written article by Cristian Mihai, discussing the connection between art and violence. In the end his question turned out to be about free will. I agree with his conclusion w’re the only ones responsible for our actions.

    The author uses a good analogy – martial arts training. It actually refers to the archetype of the warrior. One learns to fight by fighting. But it doesn’t makes necessarily a violent person. Because there is what the author calls convention and I would call rules, ethical reflection maybe moral.

    Georg Gross - The retreat

    The martial art example reveals the philosophical question behind the art topic (as well as some hints to the answer). Are we ultimately responsible for our deeds? Answer – yes we are. “We” translates in “you and me” as individual and our cultural entity (family, society, nation). While it may be an influencing factor, it is not wise, simply to shift the blame to art, to the media, to computer games, to weapons, to the not (yet) developed cortex. Violence has been always present. and it always needed the effort of the individual and culture (moral, ethic, religion, law) to restrain it.

    “The psychoanalytic C.G.Jung said under the impression of the second world war: We need more understanding of human nature, because the only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger, and we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil.”

    Simpler said, We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. The Shadow, as C.G. Jung defined it, is in us. “Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine, i.e., “All good from God, all evil from man.” said the great (religious) philosopher Augustine of Hippo (Augustinus).

    AugustineOfHippo
    AugustineOfHippo

    The free will, as Augustine sees it, differentiates man from animals.

    Having said said, we not only deny the existence of the evil by shifting the blame to something impersonal but indeed intoxicate ourselves by shallow entertainment, consumerism,  graphic violence, “sex, drugs and rock en roll” and psycho-pharmaca.

    Some turn from violence to hard science. While I largely agree that most social sciences and the bankrupt humanities are not helpful, the belief of hard sciences as savior (physics, biology, chemistry, informatics, evolutionary psychology, cognitive and neurosciences) is mechanistic and naive. Their potential solutions to prevent evil, might create evil – might create a world, in which I do not want to live in. Lack of empathy is widespread today like a mental illness. That lack seems to be even collective. In that respect, we all,  whole societies are ill. And it is a lack of empathy (or love)  that allows one to enact violence upon another living creature. I doubt, empathy levels can be enhanced through neurobiology and scientific designer drugs or information technology nor through tons of social workers.

    Now is art to blame? What is art today, most of the stuff might not even be art. 1979 Francis Ford Coppola’s haunting, hallucinatory Vietnam War epic Apocalypse Now  was graphic and violent,  but visionary. It has been said, that  Coppola made art out violence by aesthetic means, thus legitimizing it. Goethe wrote 1774 a book, “Die Leiden des jungen Werther”, about an unfilled love in which the main character commits suicide.  Followers dressed in this fashion, and committed suicide in the double digits. The imitations of the Werther figure in real life, which were in suicide attempts and suicides, started a discussion about media effects, which runs up today. Since the 1970s, the psychology deals with the phenomenon of “media-mediated imitation”. Think also of the Danish caricatures, which resulted in many deaths –  the problem is global now.

    Will the easy fix help, should we forbid art (books,paintings, movies… Goethe),  forbid, internet, forbid weapons, forbid media?

    No, we have to think, feel and act properly and raise our kids within a minimum ethical context. With love (and also with fathers).  We must rely on science, as well as on metaphysics, common sense and psychology to cope with reality. but even more on intuitive understanding (“our inner self”) .  Free will is possible, it is possible to understand our genetic and biographical patterns of behavior, at least to an extent. It is called individuation. Still shooting massacre will happen. Lucky, if one can pray then, at least.

    FallenAngel (stottilien:http://wp.me/p2bcCT-15R)