Joseph Campbell is awful

Was thinking the other day, to me the IP worked best as a platform to explore 'patterns' in topics, as an exercise in breaking out of rigid mindsets - and not to be seen as teachings..... and as a program done so in a diverse range of topics related to the various entry points people find themselves coming to real Jediism. Some might be relevant to some and not to others. And in that regard I was disappointed to see McTaggert booted from it. For seen as a precursor to working on ones more personal areas of specialization alongside further freeing oneself from harmful paradigms in an Apprenticeship, it seemed to make sense such that as a Knight they can most fully focus and develop their own best systems of decision making, action and both physical and mental health - connecting to the Force, parsing it's nature which in 'energetic' terms to me seemed like it would be more about how one works with patterns then what patterns they believed - information mobility And then subsequently populating the Degree program as they progressed on self further study to overall create a momentum of subject matter specialists and a real mentoring capability. At least that is what I inferred to be the strategic direction when I joined, by way of its structure. I dunno what others see or if what the real one is, and various changes would indicate its not that, and that is ok (hopefully its better!). But to the point, in that regard, not agreeing with something in the IP is no reason to exclude it or feel like your wasting your time - to me they would be errors of view by way of being unnecessary and wasting potential positive use of the material and process. That is my own personal view though.

And in regards to the monomyth being true... I dunno, perhaps at some deeper level, though I was also reading a few days ago about Margaret Mead and her views on how Samoan culture did not seemingly follow the standard pattern in regard to adolescent sexuality and taboos. I cannot help but feel the the monomyth speaks more of individual spiritual journey then any uniformity across cultural structures. Perhaps as a result of us all sharing the same base set of instincts and mechanisms of mind, and relatively similar environments seemingly. In which case the cultural aspect really is just limited to the study and comparison of cultures, which is not so much of interest to me personally besides connecting to a particular culture.

Please allow me to put out there how glad I am to discover that I am not alone in struggling with this.

I got into a debate recently with someone outside of this forum regarding the works of Joseph Campbell; I asserted that his ideas were fascinating but as a student of Anthropology, I have been taught from day one the cultural relativist approach, which I believe runs contrary to Campbell's monomyth. I was referred to Bastian's elemental ideas, and Jungian archetypes, and it was suggested that the work of cognitive linguistics on the "conceptual metaphor" might support some arguments for these universal archetypes.

After cooling my heels, I realized from a scholarly perspective, there is some relevance to these arguments, and I can still enjoy Campbell's theory if I do not take the monomyth as a given when approaching analysis of new cultural expressions. There are a few lecturers who I know, that would give me a right royal dressing down if they thought for one minute I was taking ideas into the field that might interfere with the work of collecting data. These ideas may have a place during final analysis, but limited practical application aside, we don't read Campbell here to become amateur anthropologists or academic folklorists.

I made a poor attempt some time ago to refute some of Campbell's ideas in a conclusion to Lesson One of my IP Journal, which needs plenty more work before it makes any real sense. I drew upon writings by Jorgenson and Dundas, both academics who make a better case than I can at this stage. But I'm glad to be able to utilize my critical reasoning faculties, and doubly thrilled that this is a forum where that is encouraged.

I wouldn't call Campbell awful; imperfect perhaps, but not awful. He certainly believed what he taught, even if his ideas had holes in them.

I'm just going to revive this topic to ask a question:
What do you think should supplement Campbell?

Rex wrote: I'm just going to revive this topic to ask a question:
What do you think should supplement Campbell?

Probably a multi-vitamin mineral pill depending on your age, health, and the recommendation of your doctor.

Remember, one perfectly correct response is to disagree in part or in full with Mr. Campbell as long as you support your ideas. It's not an indoctrination.

There will be more material, more choices and a revolution and evolution is coming to The IP and to The Order.

So question - who else can you find that explains the myth difrently or in a different light ?

Br. John wrote: revolution and evolution is coming to The IP and to The Order.

Care to unpack that?

Also to clarify, my post wasn't complaining that whoever devised the curriculum is awful for Ludovico techniquing us with Campbell. Just making the (hopefully obvious) point that he isn't an exhaustive approach to understanding myth, and then trying to find what else people have used in their personal journies.

Rex wrote: Care to unpack that?

You're more interested in vague allusions that there might be a revised IP published and some sort of (real or nominal) restructure of the Temple brand, than the recommendation that multivitamins be taken as a general supplement for all and sundry?


(an industry as insidious as gift cards, diamonds, or fast food)

For the cost of the multivitamins that millions of otherwise perfectly healthy people are swallowing each day, you could change whatever small part of the world you felt needed it most.

Not to pull this off topic but multi-vitamins are mostly a sham. Not only do most diets(even poor ones) recieve a decent amount of the needed nutrients, but we don't absorb much from the pills anyway. There are ways to optimize the absorbtion but there are risks to taking too much of certain vitamins. Please refer to a nutritionist before adding vitamins to your diet OR removing them.

This seems to need an explanation.

Vitamins, minerals, and vitamin mineral combinations are also referred to as supplements.

"Probably a multi-vitamin mineral pill depending on your age, health, and the recommendation of your doctor."

That's a pun on the word supplement, and a not that great joke, but it's a joke.

I hope and expect that changes for the better are coming. As far as the board of directors actually taking suggestions and publishing proposals for public comment, that will be after New Years Day 2019.

Br. John wrote: As far as the board of directors actually taking suggestions and publishing proposals for public comment, that will be after New Years Day 2019.

Whence the wait?

For those of us on IP 1.0, will our stuff be transferrable into the 2.0 version?

(Tbh what I'm doing is probably IP version 7, but who is really counting?)

I like him. I don't necessarily believe all the same things he does, but he's thought about them and is relatively articulate in explaining his thoughts. Even if I totally disagree with an idea I love the moment of "Oh! Wow! I learned a thing that other people believe and it's fascinating how that belief could inform actions!" I'm a naturally very curious person so for me time/energy gaining knowledge is never wasted.

To me he doesn't come across as arrogant or anything, at least not much. I mean, the only context I've seen him is, is stuff like the assigned materials where he's totally designed to be there star and topic and expert and all that; it's not his fault he's the subject of these studies.

As for his education level, I totally don't care what paperwork he has. I don't believe that someone's level of formal education means anything about what they know or don't know. Some people with high degrees seem to have shared by on a wing and a prayer and some lazy professors, and some of the most rational, deep thinking, informed people I know have no formal education beyond high school.

Maybe it's a sign of my own mental weaknesses or something, but I enjoy the Campbell material.

I'm loving the IP so far.

For anyone not loving it, you need to know that's okay. We're like snowflakes in that no 2 of us are the same, nor should we be.

I grew up in a religion that was kind of force fed intravenously; where you could only disagree privately. I left that religion because I disagreed with a couple of their core tenants. And at least one of those had changed over time from the view of the original founders.

In short, it is easy to get sucked into thinking that you must be assimilated into the collective but if you accept everything you hear are you really learning? Or are you just being programmed? Can the two be the same thing? Sometimes the answers are not as important as the questions.

Yes, when I started listening to Alan Watts (audio book) it started off great and a little Jedi (instead of an angel) on my shoulder was like "let's not be critical just because you heard something you disagree with because if your mind is too defense it can't be open to new ideas. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's asserting his own biases but you have your own biases too." But when he started rubbing me the wrong way I called it out in my journal.

I think it's great. I love being challenged by ideas. The important thing is that they come from a sincere and intellectual place. I think Watts has an extremist philosophical view point that tries deny reality but... a Jedi should be able to have intellectual discussions and respectfully disagree while being open minded. I think the key is being open minded. If you give the author a chance then after that whatever you disagree with is part of the journey.

Going through the content, some may rush through because they're trying to get to a particular end or position or title. But I feel like it's the journey that's important. I hope one day I'll write something worthy of being argued against by great Jedi minds. But disagreement with the IP is something I find to be very healthy and a welcome change from my former religion.

This was a great discussion to read and really helped me feel better about some of the things that were dragging me down about this Campbell section of the IP, thank you Paschal!!!!!!!! And thank you to everyone who participated.

I agree that Campbell is kind of a blowhard. There is merit to finding themes and tropes that run through myths of all communities -- it helps us understand that all humanity is very similar in many ways. But cultural erasure is an inevitable outcome of that.

I'm glad, therefore, that Campbell is the FIRST part of the IP. Rip the bandaid off and get it out of the way. Someday I hope we in the TOTJO can have built up enough of our own original content to no longer need the Campbell section of the IP, but in our temple's infancy, there is an obvious need to base our courses on SOMETHING.

I'm gritting my teeth trying to get through Campbell for the same reasons that Paschal listed. But I know at the end it will have been worth it to have the language to be able to expand on my own thoughts on the matters that Campbell discusses, which deviate from his considerably.

I feel more comfortable, after reading this, being a bit more critical of Campbell in my journal going forward.

What a great thread! Thank you!

The more I study and learn about other cultures' mythologies the more I find I agree with your analysis.

I used to adore Campbell...now, not so much. You're right. He oversimplifies, makes egregious errors in both thinking and interpretation, and is so vague and general so as to be fairly insulting and dismissive.

That being said... Yea...uhhh, idk how "nuanced" the biblical story of Christ's death and resurrection is. Maybe I'm showing my bias against Christian theology and dogma here, but to me...it seems pretty frigging straightforward with only the details being different. And even IF it is "nuanced" and "subtle" and whatever...so what? The overall story and meaning remains the same. Just my opinion though. I mean, to me...a dying God myth is a dying God myth. Yea, they take on different cultural connotations and interpretations, but I've always found the Christian stories about it to be...clunky, boring, and heavy-handed. (Not trying to offend anyone...just my two cents, feel free to point out why I'm wrong if you like.)

Other than that, though, yea, you're absolutely right. Campbell is pretty awful and basically racist.

Oh boy, i m coming into this discutions a few years too late! Personally i was surprised that my way of thinking is so very similar than Joseph Campbell and Alan watts , well i m only at the starts of Alan Watts but the Self and Ego are really an eye opener, i ve been wondering why humans have always failed living on earth (beside some few rare tribes) and what could be some form of solution, seen that not one politic type ever worked. So basically Alan Watts explains the reason pretty well. The truth about the human race is not always pretty and not everyone can take it. We have been told for centuries, that we are the masters of the planet but it s always been a great mistake. Now i admit that some of the thing that those too men explain are a little bit out there for me, my brain has limitations, they are really on a very different level. But right now all i want is finding their books.
We are all the same but different.
May the force be with you

That's why I really like the Avatar movie.

I liked how the Na'vi saw themselves as part of and as children of Eywa ("the guiding force").

Eywa is the guiding force and deity of Pandora and the Na'vi. The Na'vi believe that Eywa acts to keep the ecosystem of Pandora in perfect equilibrium. - https://james-camerons-avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Eywa

The connections to Eywa were physical to some extent, because of the antennae that they could link up, but it was also spiritual because Eywa didn't need to physically connect to the animals.

Humans were the antagonists, an alien force, forcefully occupying Pandora and taking whatever they wanted through military force. And of course, in their minds, was the idea that might=right; that they had a right to take and take and take because they had the means to do so and get away with it.

The natives called them demons and yet they were still willing to befriend and love but only if the humans would learn their ways; not for the sake of coercing some kind of conformity, but to because if they were going to live there they needed to understand the planet and their spiritual connections.

But humans were very immature while at the same time treating anyone without their technology as if they were savages. But lacking in technology, not wearing the same clothes, not having the same traditions, etc. These are not what makes someone a savage. It is a mindset that doesn't care about the cost. The humans weren't even taking life for the sake of survival. They were like a virus. That's how we are when we don't respect nature. We are supposed to be balanced with it. We are supposed to be connected to it. In our ancient rituals, we can see that but we've gotten away from it to the point where think our machines make us superior.

But at the end of the day we're still just biological organisms that resemble the planet we live on: hair, skin, bones, blood vessels, respiration, etc.

The Na'vi never got "too big" in their heads because they all knew that no matter what they accomplished, Eywa was much larger and so they could always keep themselves in perspective. We too... need to keep ourselves in perspective. Having an understanding of the Force can do that for us, just as Eywa did it for the Na'vi.

Yes to all you said, so it is or the human specie is immature or simply crazy, we are capable do destroy all for the sake of our own expansion, not to call it survival because it is not anymore. We do suffer of some sort of hallucination that make us this way, it creates a riff between us and nature, the ultimate paranoïa! And of course it s friend : denial

Forgive me for saying this, especially with the timing, but I wouldn't be surprised if pandemics were some kind of way for nature to "fight back" and protect itself from its human population.

Please dont get me started ! well too late. It is just what you said, in our immense instinct to survive, medicine managed to counter evolution, in the wild an animal that has a birth defect, or some kind of disease, genetic disorder will certainly die and not be able to procreate. But we manage to survive and by pass this, so we re transmitting disease to our children, we survive when we shouldnt and this way our specie has been weakened. Virus like the corona is just an other tool of mother nature to fight back, unconsciously. the huge numbers of humans alone is a weakness as we re more and more likely to meet, catch and transmit nasty disease again.