|
During the moral crisis that
affected Europe in the early 20th century, the revival of
myths, archetypes and the collective unconscious was announced by
the revaluation of Theosophy and the oriental religions, as well as
by the marked expansion of Freemasonry.
Myths are a highly complex
cultural reality that can be analysed and interpreted from several
different and complementary perspectives. Anyone approaching myths
for the first time will face a dilemma, i.e. whether it is
preferable to study myths in awareness that the study must, in the
ultimate analysis, promote the acceptance of mythology, “drinking at
the source” (to quote the words of Kerényi), or knowing that the
study must be completed through the “explanation” of why
mythological matter has been moulded into special forms.
The second, strictly
rationalist approach to myths is ironically criticised by the
advocates of the other theory who claim that: “those who break down
myths to understand their function, thus hoping to explain their
nature, are at an even lower level than the simpletons who dismantle
a radio to discover which piece produces the sound”. We believe the
two approaches do not necessarily exclude each other, since both the
“acceptance” and “explanation” of myths can be useful in
understanding their nature and meaning.
Before attempting an
analysis of myths in their protean aspects, we will offer a
definition to use as a guiding thread throughout the process, i.e.
Mircea Eliade’s definition of “myths” in his “History of Religions”:
“Any myth, of any nature, enounces an event that occurred illo
tempore, and sets an exemplary precedent for all the actions and
“situations” that replicate the event as from then.
Any ritual, or any
meaningful action performed by man is the repetition of a mythical
archetype; The consequence of repetition is the abolition of profane
time and the projection of man into a magic-religious time that has
nothing to do with duration in the strict sense of the word, but
which is the “eternal present” of mythical time”.
[i]
Moving from Eliade to the
studies of C.G.Jung, it is clear that the latter does not try and
“explain” myths as a more or less pathological feature of the mind;
instead, he illustrates how myths, in the manifold expressions taken
on in different societies, are simply the concrete and substantially
uniform expression –notwithstanding the many differences and
variations- of a timeless structure of the human unconscious.
According to Jung: “The collective unconscious appears to be made up
of images and mythological patterns, which explains why popular
myths truly represent the collective unconscious”.[ii]
Unlike the Freudian school
that claims myths are deeply enrooted within a complex of the
personal unconscious, for Jung, the timeless origin of myths lies
within a formal structure of the collective unconscious. Though
Freud never acknowledged the congenital autonomy of the mind and of
the unconscious, Jung instead revealed the existence in the latter
of an innate collective dimension with autonomous energy vis-à-vis
the Ego.
Archetypes of the
collective unconscious tend to become conscious in the course of
their phylogenic and ontogenetic development; in other words, they
are acknowledged and integrated by the conscious into a new and
wider totality. The archetypes have a compensatory dynamism
vis-à-vis the conscious, and affect the latter, either normally or
through pathological expressions, in order to achieve a more
complete personality, both at conscious and unconscious levels. The
dynamism of the archetypes of the psyche is regulated, stimulated
and conditioned by a central archetype that, in monotheism, is
predominant over the mental structure. It is the archetype of the
Self, or the archetype of totality, for by rallying the unconscious
to the conscious, it leads to the accomplishment of a more complete
personality.[iii]
We believe the same
peculiarity is observable also in Freemasonry which is undeniably
related to the “sacred”, though it is not a religion. In
Freemasonry, the archetype of the Self returns to the conscious,
thus satisfying man’s pursuit of transcendence in order to
consciously accomplish his own totality. Masons search for
expressions of this archetype within themselves so as to integrate
them in the conscious and offer them individual solutions, while the
Self becomes the divine component of personality which in gnosticism
and in the Kabbalah was the spark of light demanding its conscious
realisation. The acknowledgement of the unconscious in Freemasonry
is the modern transposition of gnosticism, the Kabbalah, alchemy,
Hermeticism.
Freemasonry is not a
religion, but an opportunity to experiment transcendence, even for
those who no longer find it in the revealed creeds. The archetype of
the Self, projected into the skies, has thus returned to the
unconscious it came from originally. It is only by returning to the
conscious that it can offer the new faith in transcendence that is
so badly needed by man nowadays.
[iv] The cornerstone of
the Freemason project is the conscious self-accomplishment of one’s
personal totality, set within the different historical
contingencies; it will continue to be proposed in the present and in
the future.
We previously recalled the
thread linking phenomena such as alchemy and the Kabbalah, to
Freemasonry. Remaining in the field of analytic psychology, what is
the relation between Freemasonry and alchemy? Alchemy is obviously
also marked by a strong need for the self-accomplishment of human
totality unconsciously projected into the matter. In fact, the
Philosopher’s stone is nothing but integrated personality, the
accomplishment of the Self. In Freemasonry, the pursuit of
self-accomplishment is no longer in the mirage of alchemical gold,
but in a philosophical project clearly influenced by alchemical
tradition. Instead, the influence of the Kabbalah on Freemasonry is
noticeable in its fundamental concept, the need to integrate the
religious, divine, in other words “sacred”, and the human dimension,
in an alliance between God and man in the continuum of creation and
the consequential improvement the latter.
Bearing in mind the
preliminary remarks, let us define “myths” as external
manifestations of the elaboration of a profound psychic identity,
defined by Jung as the “collective unconscious”; in other words, all
the innate essential life-experiences conceived, in this dimension,
from the impersonal perspective that applies to every individual, at
any time. The previously-.mentioned experiences are reproduced in
mythological and “sacred” allegories and symbols that represent the
fundamental knowledge of life, but also the a priori of
knowledge itself, in other words the archetypes defined by Jung,
i.e. the fundamental contents of the collective unconscious.
Some archetypes are also
useful for emphasising civilisation differences, and the
peculiarities of the various cultures and of the men they represent.
“Myths”, in other words
the development of one of the archetypical images, are stories that
self-represent the constitution of a civilisation and of its
energetic and spiritual foundation.
Personal experience is the
interpretation - in the contingent language of the time - of the
eternal archetypical images; myths enter history through personal
interpretation. This is why it is wrong to offer a rigid or absolute
interpretation of the symbols and allegories of the Masonic “Myth”
in Masonic rituals, instead the latter must be adapted to the
context. In fact, if the pursuit of ethical purposes falls under a
project characterised by special anthropology, the Masonic
anthropology, applications will undeniably differ in the various
historical periods of mankind.
Here is where the relation
between the ideal and philosophical levels (the conception of man),
and the concrete and historical levels (multiple applications) can
be observed. Authentic comprehension of Freemasonry can only be
gained if both the philosophical and historical levels, and their
reciprocal relation are rendered explicit.[v]
Though the unconscious
archetypical images are normally projected in myths and religion, in
the event of a collective crisis, they return to the unconscious
they originally came from, thus causing disorder and spiritual
confusion. As mentioned previously, Jung underlined the archetype of
the Self, perceived as the centre of both the conscious and
unconscious personality, opposed to the Ego, which is the centre of
the conscious. This archetype wants the conscious to accept the
unconscious, by establishing a synthesis between the conscious and
the unconscious, in order to achieve a more complete personality. In
the presence of a spiritual crisis, when the external values of the
revealed creed collapse, the archetype returns to the psyche, while
man must regenerate his sense of the sacred with greater
determination.
If the purpose of
Freemasonry is the pursuit of improvement by means of an innate
transcendental commitment, the displacement of the psychic centre of
the Ego (the centre of the conscious) to the Self (the centre of the
conscious and unconscious personality), the sine qua non
condition for achieving such a purpose is the subordination of the
Ego to the Self, in a transcendental project. However, such a
project must be based on both psychological and religious (sacred)
experiences.
The idea of transcendence is
“represented in Freemasonry by the Great Universal Architect whose
precise role is to guarantee the objectivity of the values shared
subjectively, which is where the very idea of man’s ethical
improvement is descended from. The pursuit of ethical purposes
occurs with the help of initiation modalities, in other words with
the Rituals and symbols that give Freemasonry the typical features
of an initiation society”.[vi]
Thus, Freemasonry can be
defined as “a conception of man that includes the pursuit of ethical
ends aimed at transcendence, in accordance with initiation
modalities”, from a philosophical viewpoint based upon the
common definition of Freemasonry as “a special moral system, veiled
with allegories and illustrated with symbols”.
What Jung defines an
“individualisation process” can therefore be found in the Mason’s
pursuit of improvement, in other words the conscious accomplishment
of the yearning for completeness and, therein, for individuality,
the fact of being different. The opening of the Self almost always
gives rise to a religious (or sacred) experience, and it is the
synergy of both conscious and unconscious aspects that broadens
personality.
We believe that the
importance of Jung lies in the equivalence between the aspiration
towards conscious self-accomplishment of the personality and
religiousness (or the quest for sacredness). The path to the
accomplishment of one’s individuality is part of a wider
transcendental project.
Let us now consider “Myths”
from an elitist viewpoint. Jung offers the following definition of
the collective unconscious: “A part of the psyche that appears as
the negative of the personal unconscious, because, unlike the
latter, its existence does not stem from personal experience, it is
therefore not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious
is essentially made up of events that used to be conscious, but
which disappeared from the conscious after having been forgotten or
repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never
been part of the conscious; they have therefore never been acquired
individually and their existence is exclusively owed to heredity.
The personal unconscious is essentially made up of complexes, while
the content of the collective unconscious is mainly formed by
archetypes”.[vii]
“Archetypes” would therefore prove the existence in the psyche of
particular forms that are present always and wherever, in other
words, “pre-existing forms”. Jung explained the concept as follows:
“My theory is therefore the following: in addition to our immediate
knowledge, which is by nature completely personal and which we
consider as the only strictly empirical psyche (even if the personal
unconscious is added as an appendix), there is a second psychic
system that is collective, universal and impersonal, and which is
identical in every individual. This collective unconscious does not
develop individually, but is inherited. It is made up of
pre-existing forms, archetypes, that can become conscious only
later, and confer particular forms to some contents of the psyche”.[viii]
However, if archetypes
simply define the contents of the psyche that have not yet undergone
conscious elaboration, therefore representing a still immediate
psychic data and an unconscious content that has evolved through new
awareness, the very fact of their having been perceived also
emphasises the awareness in the individual that will bring them back
to light.
It is precisely in this
phase of new awareness and consciousness that elites exploit their
own inclination for myths and all the symbols involved. In other
words, myths and symbols, the fundamental components of archetypes,
are considered by the Jungian school as fundamental and exemplary
categories that existed before human history, yet are impressed in
the unfathomable depth of the human mind; they are destined to
emerge in the conscious of few individuals, taking on form and
substance in the mind of the “conscious” person.
Mircea Eliade agrees that a
privileged access to myths is generally speaking reserved to elites,
and says: “In archaic societies, acting mythological traditions was
the prerogative of a limited number of individuals. In some
societies, the actors were chosen among the shamans or medicine-men,
or among the members of secret confraternities… That is to say that
the role of creative personalities must have been greater than one
can imagine”.[ix]
Eliade concluded by saying:” In other words, when privileged
religious experiences are conveyed through impressively fantastic
scenarios, they can impose models or sources of inspiration to the
entire community”.[x]
Therefore, myths and
symbols belong to the generality of individuals, yet only few are
able to gain full awareness of them. Following the definitions
offered by Eliade and Jung, we will now dwell upon the
interpretation of “Myths” according to Malinowski’s anthropological
version, within the context of so-called “experienced mythology”.
According to Malinowski:
“Myths in primitive societies, in other words in their original
living forms, does not simply consist in the telling of stories, but
of true experiences. Not the kind of inventions found in novels, but
real events that are believed to have occurred in primordial times,
and that still relentlessly pour onto the world and human destiny…
These stories are not kept alive by mere curiosity; they are
considered to be neither invented nor true stories. For the natives,
they are the expression of a superior reality of utmost importance
that determines the lives, destiny and current activities of
mankind, they offer inspiration both for ritual and moral acts, and
for the best way to put them into practice”.[xi]
In Freemasonry, we can
notice the peculiarity of the “experienced Myth” in the “Legend of
Hiram”. Hiram was the builder of king Solomon’s temple; he was
killed treacherously by three of his companions who wanted to steal
the secret of the builder’s craft, and who made his corpse
disappear.
Every Mason admitted to the
Third Degree ceremony is identified with Hiram who dies and rises
again; thanks to his resurrection, he rises to the high rank Master
Mason. In the rebirth ritual, the repetition of Hiram’s death is
“authentically” experienced by the Mason aspiring to the rank of
Master Mason.
A truly traditional society
such as Freemasonry can be identified in the mythical structure made
perpetual through its rites and mysteries. The loyalty of Freemasons
to the extra-temporal word is guaranteed by the central “Myth”:
Hiram’s “Word” that is reborn in every new Master.
In Malinowski’s conception
of “Myths”, rituals are the “narrative resurrection” of a primordial
reality, and are therefore the only ones that can actually ensure
moral and spiritual regeneration. However, Malinowski also denies
the essentially symbolic feature of “Myths” – i.e. symbolising
something different than they are –, and says: “Myths” primarily and
directly express what they depict, i.e. a fact dating back to the
primeval era.”
On the same issue, Kerényi
objects: “such a fact, in turn, does have something to express:
something more universal, something from the real world where a
reality is manifested in a mythological form; this is something that
Malinowski has not considered”.
[xii]
Kerényi’s work as a
mythologist consists in the pursuit of the approach to this
“something more universal”, which has lead him to what we believe is
the most organic interpretation of “Myths”. This interpretation
emphasises how “Myths”, conceived and manipulated for political
purposes, are nothing but degenerations, or, better still,
pseudo-myths. In fact, according to Kerényi, a distinction must be
made between “Genuine Mythology”, in other words the spontaneous and
disinterested elaboration of contents that surface spontaneously
from the psyche, and “”Technicalised” Mythology”, the evocation and
elaboration for personal finalities of material that can serve a
specific purpose.[xiii]
The distinction proposed by
Kerényi between the genuine epiphanies of “Myths” and the
“technicalisation” of those very “Myths” (pseudo-epiphanies) helps
us grasp the most important distinction between the two
manifestations of “Myths”. For instance, Kerényi pinpointed the
obvious “technicalisation” of “Myths” during the Fascist period,
when the existence of an extra-human substance revealed in man and
in history was denied, while mythology was claimed to be a mere
representation of human life.
In the “technicalisation”
of “Myths”, Kerényi perceives the doctrinal assumption for a social
and political use of “Myths” with the aim of blocking and
subjugating man faced with impending extra-human forces – in other
words, manipulators ; that is to say, aimed for personal interests
at the exact contrary of “broadening the conscious”, the fundamental
assumption of Freemasonry.
In fact, the Masonic
approach to “Myths” is part of a spatial and temporal context that
is substantially different, with diametrically opposed assumptions
and purposes. Space is considered “sacred”, which necessarily
entails the abolishment of profane time. As Eliade recalled: “The
desire of being perpetually and spontaneously in a sacred space
corresponds to the quest for perpetual life, thanks to the eternal
repetition of the archetypal gestures. The repetition of the
archetypes expresses the paradoxical desire of reaching an ideal
form (archetype) under the very conditions of human life, of being
inside duration without bearing its weight, in other words without
facing its reversibility”.[xiv]
Other authoritative
scholars, such as Ernst Cassirer and Walter Otto, also addressed the
issue of “Myths”. Cassirer perceives “Myths” as nothing but a way of
thinking, and affirms the following: “In the time between WWI and
WWII, a radical change in the forms of political thought took place.
The most alarming and important feature in the development of modern
political thought is perhaps the rising of a new power: Mythical
power”.
On the contrary, Walter Otto
claims: “”Myths” are neither a way of thinking, nor a
representation, not even the product of brilliant and profound
imagination, but the actual revelation of human beings; in other
words, “Myths” affirm man in his completeness and depict his
attitude in life”.[xv]
In any case, conceiving
“Myths” as a way of thinking means that such a distance has been
taken that we are no longer capable of contemplating them as they
appear to our sight.
At the conclusion of this
excursus on Myths, the thesis according to which the opposition
between “Myths” and “Democracy” is so evident that demonstration is
needless, no longer applies. The assumption underlying such a thesis
is the organic nexus between “Myths” and “Totalitarianism”:
democracy is in its very nature opposed to the policy of myths since
the latter characterises totalitarian regimes; correspondingly,
totalitarian regimes make use of political myths in order to defeat
democracy and prevent its revival.[xvi]
The assumption implies that
in totalitarian systems, the archetypes that pre-exist unconsciously
in the collective memory condition the unaware masses, though they
are the bearers of the same original models, making them accept the
directives issued instrumentally by elites. The symbols and models
proposed by the latter to the masses as examples draw their capacity
of persuasion from ancestral memory and from the liberating power of
myths and of what they evoke. Thus, the observation of rules becomes
a requirement of the spirit, a prospect of liberation. Compliance
with the law, the expression of power, is total, as it offers the
guarantee of power and self-accomplishment.
Yet, if, as we ascertain,
the myths used by totalitarianisms are nothing but pseudo-myths, and
if the emancipation of man, through the inclination for an
authentically mythical view of life, cannot but clash with mass
policies and the standardisation of consciences, then the axiom
according to which “Myths” equal “Totalitarianism” is inevitably
overturned in the principle that perceives any totalitarian form as
a negation of “Myths” themselves.
Therefore, “Myths”, in
their “genuine” version, cannot but be self-revealing for man along
his pathway towards the progressive conquest of authenticity and his
sacred dimension, the very bastion of freedom.
NOTES
[i]
M. Eliade, “Trattato della Storia delle Religioni” (The History of
Religions), Turin, 1986, page 446.
[ii]
C.G. Jung, “Gli Archetipi dell’Inconscio Collettivo” (Archetypes of
the Collective Unconscious), Bollati Boringhieri, 1977, p. 11.
[iii]
G. Tedeschi “L’Ebraismo e la Psicologia Analitica” (Hebraism and
Analytic Psychology) . Giuntina, 2000, p. 12
[iv]
G. Tedeschi, Ibid, p. 16
[v]
G. Di Bernardo. “Filosofia della Massoneria” (Philosophy of
Freemasonry), Marsilio 1987, p7
[vi]
G. Di Bernardo, Ibid, p. 3-6
[vii]
C.G. Jung, Ibid, p. 69
[viii]
C.G. Jung, Ibid, p. 70
[ix]
M. Eliade, “Mito e Realtà” (Myth and Reality), Doria, 1988, p.
179-180
[x]
M. Eliade, ibid
[xi]
K. Kerénya, Prolegomeni allo studio scientifico della mitologia .
Bollati Boringhieri, 1994, p. 19
[xii]
K. Kerényi, Ibid, p. 19-20
[xiii]
F. Jesi, Mito (Myth), Mondadori, 1989, p. 80
[xiv]
M. Eliade, Trattato di storia delle religioni, Bollati Boringhieri,
1996, p. 422
[xv]
W. F. Otto, Essays sur le Mythe, p. 24
[xvi]
R. Esposito, Micromega 1/92, p. 203 |
