Joseph Campbell is awful

I'd say its relevance is to a struggle, by its association with heroism rather then to journey. And so to contextualize it as a pathway 'out' the numbering sequence serves to denote a start to contrast an end, but in practical terms since deeper struggle is usually unknowable prior I tend to find the entry point to be the struggle. Such that the departure are methods to actively choose to accept, identify and take responsibility for ones predicament so they can serve usefully going forward rather then pull one backwards. The act is a metaphor to coping with transformation from struggle. And the return allows a neat bow to ritualize the exit from the struggle. So in the context of how I see the starting point, I'd probably reclassify the 3 stages into arrival->initiation->departure, rather then departure->initiation->return. Because I don't think a hero is made for taking a journey, but for overcoming something. Certainly before our generations the larger portion of that was of the actual journey, but perhaps these days the journey is more of the mind then of the body, and so the focus can return to where the transformation now actually occurs. Random thoughts...

@ PaschalVehicle
Part of the lesson isn’t about the author but about the subject so keep that in mind as well if you can - regardless of the author the first lesson is about the myth. The myth - what do you think of it - seen it - recognize it- use it- see it- where when how does it have any relevance to you - how do you use it if any? The myth -

On Alan Watts: I personally think The Way of Zen would be a much more useful entry in the IP than The Book. It addresses many of the same points with better presentation.

I can understand the distaste for Campbell, but his accreditation is unimportant. A degree doesn't determine your knowledge in any area; I have known philosophers with a better understanding of physics and the material sciences than many people with degrees working in the field. The fact that he doesn't have a theology degree is of no concern; the man dedicated his time to researching a particular topic, mythology, and he aims to present a unified theory of examination in that field. I will admit that he takes it a bit far, as there are many conflicting cultures and religions, with myths aiming to demonstrate different moral or metaphysical ideals, but his monomyth is useful for establishing a unified terminology for common story elements. A streamlined dictionary is very useful, and Campbell at least attempts to do so.

Monomyth - can I claim the allmyth as a inclusion of every myth for every man? Called it ! Lol

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.