Jung and the Archetypes

It's funny he's accused of many things such as starting a new religion by some rather unscrupulous biographers. But what he did was actually far more radical than anything he's ever been accused of One other thing I should tell you too is Jung is often been accused of anti-semitism but one of the things that came to light in last year was that he was working as an agent for the American government during World War Two and frequently set updates on Hitler's psychological condition to the highest levels of the American government.

He never told anybody about that. So, So you know, that's a little. Accusations of antisemitism. I think which I've never thought had held any merit anyways. So,

Many ways extraordinarily. Imaginative. He could. Get lost in daydreams. And was a tremendously powerful visualizer. And a lot of what he discovered. Was a consequence of engaging in long-term. Collaborated fantasies. And in these fantasies. He could have conversations with figures of his imagination and communicate with them. I had a client at one point who was a very prolific dreamer and.

She can talk to her characters in her dreams and ask them what they meant symbolically and they would tell her. That was really something. I've only seen one person who who was capable of doing that she was I don't know if it helped her that much and the final analysis but she could do it.

And Jung was very very interested in the depths of the human imagination. Now his. Body of work. Can be viewed as an amalgam of many things but. He had deep knowledge of Latin in Greek. And he'd studied. Elchemical manuscripts for many many years as an older man, so he was very interested in the emergence of the idea of science from what he considered the collective imagination.

But in many ways his primary modern intellectual influences, I would say were Nietzsche and Freud and you'll really set out some somewhat like Piaget to. Address the gap between religion and science, but he did it for different reasons than Piaget. Jung took Nietzsche's comments about the death of God very seriously and one of the things Nietzsche predicted at.

The end of the 19th century was that. They were going to be two major consequences of the collapse of formal religious belief, he believed that what would lead people to a morally relativistic condition that would prove psychologically intolerable because. If you adopt a morally relativist position and you take it to its final conclusion then.

Everything is of equal value and there's no gradient between things there's no better and there's no worse and in the final analysis you might say well there's no good and there's no evil and the problem with that is you can't actually orient yourself in a world that has those properties because in order to act as we've already talked about with regards to the cybernetic models, you have to be aiming at something that's better than what you have now or there's no reason to expand the energy and so you need the gradient you need a value differentiation in order to act and reaches Analysis. predicated on the idea that if the value hierarchy collapsed well not only would people not be motivated to do anything anymore but they would also be extraordinarily confused and depressed because the value would go out of their life and the consequence of that would be that they would become somewhat nihilistic or maybe absolutely nihilistic or that they would turn to ideological rigid ideological systems as a replacement.

Now what Nietzsche. Offered as an alternative to that was that human beings could create their own values and so his idea was that the superman the overman depending on how you look at it would be the person who was capable of. Transcending the. Unless universe that the decline of religion had left with us and creating their own values as a conscious act.

The problem with that is that. It isn't obvious that you can create your own values as a conscious act. Because it's not obvious that values are consciously created and I think this is why the psychoanalysts had so much to add to the philosophical debate. To the philosophical debate that.

Developed to the point of Nietzsche observations. When Freud entered the scene the idea of the unconscious was in the air, but Freud formalized it to a much greater degree than anyone else had and Freud's theory really is deeply biological, you know his his. Biological its social as well but his proposition that proposition that there's an end is fundamentally the proposition that you're not necessarily your consciousness for sure is not the master in its own house.

Now I think part of the reason that people like to go after Freud there's a variety of reasons but one of them is that modern people basically accept radical Freudian presuppositions more or less as givens now, you know, and so if you're a brilliant thinker and you're thought permeates a society to the point where your most radical propositions are accepted by everyone all of it's really left are your errors.

And so it's easy to concentrate on Freud's errors because we've only digested everything he had to say that was particularly profound. I mean, I don't imagine perhaps I'm wrong but I don't imagine that there's anyone in this room to whom the news that many of your motivations aren't conscious comes as a surprise.

I mean even psychologists have admitted that in the last 20 years, you know, I mean, they talk about the cognitive unconscious with which I think is a real slight of hand maneuver to stop them from having to credit. Freud with his discoveries, and I also think that Freud's not.

Jung the unconscious far more sophisticated than the cognitive scientists notion because Freud viewed the unconscious as a place that was basically populated by fragmented personalities not cognitive schemes of one form or another and not processes but things that were like living beings and you know, what you think well are there living beings in your unconscious and the answer to that is well, are you alive or not?

And you're alive, so you're composed of living subcomponents and they're not machines or at least not in any way that we understand machines they're fragmented. Sub-personalities and each of them have their own. World view and rationalizations and emotional structure and goals. And so that's why when you get hungry you see the world through the eyes of a hungry person and you think thoughts about food and your emotional reactions depend on whether food is available or whether it isn't and maybe whether or not the food you want is available in whether it isn't and you know the that that's nature, so to speak imposing its necessities on you as a living being and for Freud that was the end.

And so I thought of the ending really as something that was primordial and primitive and he and and.

And that's one of the things that really separated him from Jung and I think Jung is much more accurate from the perspective the evolutionary psychology. In fact, I think he's radically underestimated as a thinker who's thought was unbelievably deeply grounded in biology and again was a remarkable person because, His notion of history and and the relationship between history and the human psyche whoa covered spans of time that were really.

Until modern historians and evolutionary psychologists started to talk about deep time and the fact that you know, the entire four billion year history of the world is in some sense relevant to us to up to us as beings or at least the three billion three point five billion year history that there's been life on the planet.

Ancient history for European philosophers was like five hundred to two thousand years ago and young thought way past that way back farther than that and started to take into serious account the fact that our the origins of our psyche the ground of our psyche is deeply biological and that it's an emergent properly.

So for Freud Freud's idea of the unconscious is somewhat difficult to understand because there's sort of two elements to it, there's the end which is the source of primordial motivation and Freud concentrated mostly on aggression and sexuality. And the reason he concentrated on those two, Although we. Concentrated on what he called the death in state later in his life.

The reason he concentrated on those two primarily wasn't because he regarded them necessarily as the most compelling of motivations but he regarded those motivations as the ones that were most difficult for most people to integrate successfully into the social world. So he thought that they were most likely to be repressed and therefore underdeveloped and and immature.

And I think that's, I think that's a reasonable proposition. I think that modern people would have to add eating to that because since the time of Freud we've gone. I would say from. A high proportion of sexually related pathologies to a very very high proportion of eating related pathologies, but that's in some sense beside the point.

So that's one part of the Freudian unconscious sort of an implicit unconscious. And then the other part of the Freudian unconscious is those things that have happened to you that you've repressed. Because you don't like what they imply. And you know, those are very different kinds of unconscious because one of them is dependent on your experience and the other isn't and you could think of Jung actually as a a deep archaeologist of the end.

And Freud Freud thought about the it in sort of primordial terms, so his his angry id would be you know. Like a beast that's out of control. But you. Recognize that the unconscious was far more sophisticated in many ways than the conscious parts of your being and. That it guided your adaptation in ways that you didn't understand.

And that those the ways in which it guided your adaptation and structured your understanding were universal. Hands biological and. Far more sophisticated than I somewhat primordial notion of biological drive might indicate. So, One of the things that you might consider, for example, is that from the union perspective. A lot of the forces that ancient people considered deities.

Personified representations of instinctual systems. So here's a way of thinking about and this is a way of thinking about the collective unconscious, which is used in some sense. Jung's replacement term for the Freudian Id. So Mars, for example is the God of War Roman god of war. And you might say well what does it mean for there to be a God of War and the answer or Venus is the God of love actually of sexual attraction more particularly.

Or of sexual possession, which is even a better way of thinking about it. You say well, why would people conceptualize of those phenomena as God's? The Greek said, for example, that human beings were the play things of the Gods. No, that's what Shakespeare. I'm sorry the Shakespeare said that.

Well, here's one way of thinking about it. What's older you or aggression? Answer that is well, you're 23 and the system that mediates biological aggression in mammals and their progenitors is. Tens of millions of years old. And if you think you control it rather than the other way around.

You're diluted about your central nature. Part of it part of it is that you don't control it at all. What happens is that you never go anywhere where you need to use it? And so one of the things that happens to soldiers in wartime, for example is they go somewhere where they could use it and out it comes and the consequence of its emergence is so traumatic that they develop post-traumatic stress disorder because they observe themselves doing things that are hyper-aggressive that they could have never imagined that someone like them could have manifested.

And then you think well what about Venus as a goddess? Well, if you fall in love with someone. Who is that a choice? It doesn't look like a choice. If it's a choice it's often an incredibly self-destructive and idiotic choice and it's often one that ruins people's entire lives.

It's more like a state of possession and then you might say well possession by what? Well, it's a dynamic living system and it's also immortal in some sense which is another reason why conceptualizing it as a deity makes sense. I mean the phenomena of love which is, The manifestation of a complex biological system will be along long will be around long after you're gone and was there long before you showed up and when it manifests itself, so to speak within you you're possessed by it and you do its bidding and you may do its bidding despite what you most deeply want.

You know modern people tend to think that the conscious parts of their brain the say. Or let's say the more newly evolved elements of their brain because we don't actually know what the relationship is between consciousness and the newly developed parts of the brain the assumption is often made that the reason we're conscious is because we've developed a very spectacular cortical cap but consciousness appears to be far older than that.

So that's an erroneous assumption, but we do tend to believe that the most complex and sophisticated parts of our brain are the cortical cap the complex cortical cap, that's quite enlarged in human beings relative to our body size. Because it's the most it's the it's the newest systems and it's their it's also part of the systems that allow us to do such things as communicate with language and think in abstract symbols.

But there's a different way of thinking about this from a biological perspective and that is what makes you think the newest system is the most sophisticated one. Why don't you assume that the oldest system is the most sophisticated one because it's been around for well, for example the mechanism in in your neurological.

The mechanism that underlies your conception of your relationship to the dominance hierarchy, for example. Is at least three hundred million years old. And the reason it's lasted three hundred million years is because it knows what it's doing. As far older than you you're the parts of your brain that make you conscious in the specifically human way and it's so deeply embedded in your brain in some sense that you have almost no voluntary control over and that's why for example one of the things that happens to people who are depressed is that the system that reports their dominance dominance status.

Reports that their low. Now sometimes that's true because they're not depressed they just have an awful life and they're actually at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy and that's not the same as being depressed but sometimes it malfunctions so someone who's competent and well situated in life and who appears to have everything that a person could possibly desire in order to have a decent and meaningful and positive life are still catastrophically depressed and what seems to happen in those circumstances is that the dominance counter for one reason or another is acting as if they're incredibly low status when they're in fact not.

And I think that's a good definition of clinical depression. I also think that part of the reason that there's mixed results with regards to antidepressant trials is because antidepressants don't help you if you're at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy how could they you're not depressed you just have a terrible life that is not the same thing and they need to be carefully distinguished because if you're unemployed and you're facing the loss of your home, and maybe your partner's going to leave you and your children hate you.

An antidepressant is very unlikely to fix that now to the degree that misbehavior on your part called caused by impulsivity and increased aggression and decreased mood because of your reaction to that circumstances is making it worse than the antidepressant might help you and maybe the antidepressant will help you regain enough cognitive control so that you can plan your way out of the situation but as a medication in and of itself, there's no possible way, it can lift you out of those often catastrophically complex and disintegrating circumstances.

Where it. Is if you're life is fine but you feel terrible well it's much more likely that an antidepressant can help with that because in some sense what it's going to do is to readjust your dominance the reporting of your dominance counters, so to speak to the level that's appropriate for your level of competence which is really what you want, you know, people say you should have high self-esteem.

I would say idiots say that you should have high self-esteem it's it's an unbelievably corrupt construct in many ways because it's actually very very highly correlated with baseline levels of Neuroticism negatively which is a fundamental personality trait and baseline levels of extroversion, so someone with low self-esteem is generally someone who's introverted and has high levels of negative emotion, it's a trait like phenomena isn't clear at all the calling that low self-esteem has any utility whatsoever but then you also might ask yourself well how much self-esteem should you have?

Well that's a very complex question because you can clearly have way too much that's what would make you a narcissist so I would say your self-esteem shouldn't be roughly equivalent to the esteem in which your held by members of your society, you know, your family and your society because they're judging you at least in part on your competence and you shouldn't think that you're more competent than you are and you shouldn't think that you're less competent than you are you should think that you're as competent as you are and sometimes that means you're not competent at all because you don't know what You're doing and sometimes it means that you're quite competent now.

I think it's complicated by the fact that you should also regard yourself not only as who you are but as who you could be you know, and so if you're of lowly dominant status which for example in some sense you guys are because you're young and you know, you're starting your lives the fact that there's a lot of potential that you still are able to manifest should.

Tilt the self-assessment balance in your favor to a fair degree, so. Anyways you was very interested in the depths of the psyche and for him the unconscious wasn't a repository of repressed experiences and it wasn't a repository of under-developed and irritated biological systems. It was instead the underlying structure of consciousness itself, so you'll believe that human experience as its consciously manifested was structured by underlying.

Patterns of behavior. That were. Specific and unique to to the to the human. To human kind although shared to some degree with other animals and then on top of that a realm of image and symbolic representation. That in part was. A consequence of representation of those underlying behaviors. So here's a way of thinking about it.

We act in a human way. Whatever that means and we've been acting in a human way for as long as there's been human beings. And we've been acting in a mammalian way for as long as there's been mammals. Now human beings are quite peculiar creatures because not only do we act.

We also watch ourselves act and we represent those options. And you believe that as a consequence of. Us manifesting. A specific set of typically human behaviors over. Hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of years, we also evolved the cognitive apparatus that was capable of representing those patterns of behavior.

And that cognitive apparatus expressed the representations of those fundamental patterns of behavior in imagesic and symbolic form and the basic images to can symbolic form is something like drama. Now, why would that be? Well, it's it's obvious in some sense, what is drama? Drama is the representation the abstract representation of patterns of behavior.

That's what you do when you go to a movie. You watch people manifest their characteristic behaviors and then you might know that there's well there's characteristic. Quasi unique patterns of behavior that are portrayed in drama. So for example there's the bad guy and he wears a black hat in a cowboy movie and whenever you go to a movie it's pretty clear to you right away who the good guys are in the bad guys are and you accept the distinction between good and bad guys as an a priority acceptable distinction.

So Jung would say well that's the action of an archetype. What underlies that is the archetypal story of the hostile brothers and hostile brothers, for example are Kane and Abel which is the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis, by the way is really the second story that that's in that origin myth.

And it's the first story about real human beings right because Adam and Eve so to speak were created by God, whereas Cain and Abel were born the first brothers. Well, what happened? Well, one of them became insanely jealous of the other and murdered him. So that's a pretty harsh story when you think that you know are the in the the monotheistic religions of of the West roughly speaking put as one of their foundational stories the idea that there's a twin pair of forces operating the human psyche that can be conceptualized as brothers who are murderously opposed to one another.

It's like, That's part of the reason why that story hasn't disappeared. It's so powerful. It's so shocking. Powerful that it can't disappear. And the reason for that is that it's true in a sense. It's true, like it's true that a reasonable drama not all of them obviously but a large proportion of them has a bad guy and a good guy.

And then you might say well, what would the archetypes be? Well, the archetypes would be the ultimate good guy. And the ultimate bad guy. And there's representations of the. Ultimate good guy in the ultimate bad guy Jung was very influenced by Christianity and part of the reason for that is that he grew up in a state that was Protestant primarily Christian and a number of his immediate ancestors were pastors.

So he grew up in an atmosphere that was pretty saturated by religious ideas. And so a lot of his thinking was heavily influenced by Christianity. So one of the things he pointed out was that just like Cain and Abel who are archetypes in a sense their archetypes of the they're the Old Testament version of archetypes of the hostile brothers Christ and Satan are archetypes and the reason there aren't.

The types is because virtually by definition the the satanic symbol, so to speak is a representation a symbolic representation of everything that's terrible about human beings. It's an archetype. You can't imagine anything worse than that so it's like a limit case and then when you go to a movie and you see bad guys, you can think of them as partial approximations of the archetype or you can think about them as the archetype differentiated in a manner that makes exposure to the archetype fresh and interesting.

Because you just don't want to go and see the same old bad guy over and over and over you want to explore the entire. Complex. Behavioral and representational system of the archetype of the of evil in every conceivable situation and in the same way you want to explore the archetype of good and the reason you want to do that in principle.

Depending on your motivations. Is to control. The influence of the factors that underlie the negative archetype in your life and to manifest the factors that underlie the positive archetype. And that's why you hope for the good guy. It's also why generally speaking in a drama you embody the good guy while you're watching the movies.

So I can give you an example of this so I one of the things I learned to do with my son when I took him to movies because when he was little guy, I took him to fairly intense movies and, Sometimes too intense but. One of the things I taught him when he was afraid was keep your eye on the hero.

Not don't be afraid or it's not real. It's like, You could easily make a case that it movie is more real than normal life. Why would you watch it otherwise what a movie is is normal life stripped of everything, that's trivial. So if you strip a representation of everything that's trivial what makes you think that isn't more real.

So is fiction more real than. Life well is abstraction more real than reality. Certainly isn't many cases. I mean, there are people who believe for example that mathematical representations are are the most real of phenomena, they certainly if you're a very powerful mathematician they you certainly become. A very powerful mathematically it certainly gives you a tremendous amount of control over your environment, so the idea that abstractions aren't real is.

A silly idea. And the idea that fiction isn't real it all that indicates is a confusion about what constitutes real. A movie is a representation of characteristic behavioral patterns extending across time. And it can be a more or less useful inaccurate. Distillation of those representations and generally what we assume is that the greater the fictional.

Representation. Because we make a distinction between great fictional representations and you know, second rate fictional representations so Shakespeare, for example is a master at exploring the contours of the archetype in a complex realistic and useful manner.

Now you'll also believe so that there were these patterns of behavior and and and they would constitute the typical behavioral patterns of human beings. And then we evolved a system of representations of those patterns and that would would enable us to understand the patterns in a way that other animals can't because we're self-conscious right so what does it mean to be self-conscious it doesn't just mean that you know that you exist as a separate entity like it's not just a state of conscious awareness, it's a knowledge condition you have at your fingertips a very large representational storehouse of abstract knowledge about what human beings are like and that's developed over tens of thousands.

Of years right it's a collective activity the generation of all these stories we tell about each other. I mean, we have ancient stories the oldest stories we have by the way are Mesopotamian stories far as I know and the oldest Mesopotamian story or one of the oldest Mesopotamian stories we have is a hero story where the the god Marduk.

Fights a great dragon. And cuts her into pieces and makes the world and you might think well. What he mess up Damian's you know, what do you mean the world's created over the pieces of a great dragon well? It's it's appears yet an idea. With a bit of narrative complexity added to it, it's like well, how do you create the world?

Well you confront the unknown and you transform it into the known or you confront unexplored territory and you transform it into explore territory and then you might say well what exactly is the unknown or what exactly is unexplored territory and a scientist would say well, you know, if you walk out in the field that you've never been in before there's soil and material elements and that's what's really there.

But that isn't exactly what's really there it depends on your timeframe so one of the things I could say about that, for example is that if you wonder outside the boundaries of your knowledge. If you wondered outside the boundaries of your territory when you were an animal. You were a more archaic human being the probability that you were going to run into something.

Tear you apart and eat you was extremely high and so then I could say well the fundamental nature of the unknown is that which tears you apart and eats you and you might think well is that what sort of reality is that and and I would say, you know how you hear evolutionary psychologists talk sometimes about the fact that we evolved on the African developed and now our nervous systems are sort of adapted for that primordial environment and not really for the modern environment and so there's a mismatch between us and the modern world it's like I think that's an Absolutely reprehensible theory partly because we didn't just.

Evolve on the belt we've been evolving for a very long time we spend a lot more time in trees for example than we did on the belt and well we were spending time in trees a lot of us were eaten by snakes for example and so that's another reason why the the unknown itself is represented as this terrible predatory reptilian beast and then the human being is represented as that which or the conscious element of the human being which is represented by the Mesopotamians as a god the highest god actually in the hierarchy of gods, which was a brilliant message Mesopotamian realization because the Mesopotam, Ia means basically concluded in their drama their religious drama that the highest faculty of the human being was the capacity to consciously attend to the unknown and to make something new out of it well, that's a Piagetian idea, right?

Will it be a Jung was talking about when he talked about the necessity of? Comprehending knowledge as a process rather than as a collection of facts it's a process what's the process confront what you don't understand boldly go where no one has ever gone, right? I mean Star Trek that's where systematizing minds get their mythology, you know, it's rife with mythology and it's initial statement as a mythological statement and so statement of the eternal explorer and that's an archetypal idea and you know, you might say well, are you still threatened by those terrible things that threatened your ancestors on the belt and normally people Would. Say well no because there are no lions but that's because they they don't get the categories right lion is a subcategory of unknown horrible thing and you guys are surrounded by unknown horrible things just like people have always been surrounded by unknown horrible things so because you're just as prone to disease not quite as prone but fundamentally, you're a finite being and there's things everywhere that act in a predatory manner in relationship to you and you will die.

And so the idea that the material conditions of our environment have changed in a qualitative manner, since the time we spent on the belt is in it's an error of category. The mythological categories are categories that represent environmental entities so to speak some of which are social that have existed for vast stretches of time and which exceed our capacity to detect with our senses so one representation for example is the great father or the wise old man and the wise old man of the great father is fundamentally a representation of the dominance hierarchy now the problem with the dominance hierarchy is you can't see it.

But it's there it's really there and then figures like the great mother especially the tariff because most of the archetypal figures come in pairs a positive element and a negative element and that's because virtually everything that manifests itself to you in a complex environment if you're a living being takes with one hand and gives with the other you know, so nature is benevolent and kind and wise and the source of all new knowledge and also cancer and malarial mosquitos and the setsy fly and the guinea worm and all these things that Are horrifying and destructive beyond belief and you're stuck with both and then society we talked about this before that's the great father, it's on the one hand here you are benevolently protected by your social surround on the other hand social structures tend towards tyranny and authoritarianism and they oppress the individuals within them at the same time that they sustain their development and so that's a dichotomous archetype and then there's the individual who's on the one hand a remarkable and wonderful creature and on the other hand.

Someone who's capable of Atrocities like those that characterized the auctions of many millions of people in the 20th century, those are all archetypes. There are more archetypes than that. Archetype of the predatory reptile was something to offer which is essentially a dragon is the most fundamental archetypal representation you found that representation in el chemical manuscripts mostly in the form of the Earl Burroughs which is a snake that eats its own tail and it's a symbol of matter and spirit in union because the snake is sort of matter and the wings on the snake the dragon make it spirit, so it's like the fundamental elements of reality are matter in spirit in some kind of conjoined State. The fundamental task of the human being is to come to terms with the nature of that unknown thing. Now think about it this way. Well, why would ancient people represent the unknown as such as a reptilian self-contained reptilian form that was both spiritual and mat and material?

Well, here's the reason. First the unknowns dangerous. And you could be its prey. So you better have that representation at hand and then you might ask well is that really the unknown and then I would say well it depends absolutely on what you mean by really from a Darwinian perspective that was the best way to conceptualize the unknown and then you might say well that doesn't make it real and then I might say you're are you sure about that?

Is there anything more real than than representations derived from Darwinian processes? The Darwinists would say, no. Okay so why is it matter in spirit or why is it waned and and on the ground at the same time Well this is you can also understand this from a Piagetian perspective and so that is because when you encounter the unknown you separate the material world in the spiritual world and the spiritual world is the psychological world and so what you're doing when you encounter the unknown is you parse some of it up into the world and you incorporate other elements of it into yourself.

And the best way to think about that, I think from a conceptual perspective so it becomes more understandable is that what you encounter when you encounter. The unknown is patterned information. And you take some of that patterned information into yourself even by doing something as simple as gripping something you want to pick up because you're imitating the pattern of the thing that you want to pick up and that's how you're transforming its structure into an element of your being and so when you're exploring the unknown it's constructivist idea, you're simultaneously constructing the world and constructing yourself and thus the inference is the unknown is made out of that which can be parsed out into psyche and matter.

And it's dangerous. So it's perfectly reasonable representation and that's why it won't go away. So June's fundamental contribution I would say is the is his analysis of hero mythology. And I would say that's the fundamental element of his thinking. Now the relationship between that and Miche is fundamentally this Nietzsche believe that once the religious systems collapse, we would have to consciously produce our new set of values but Jung believed that the psyche was the source of all value and this so that it wasn't a matter of creating new values it was a matter of discovering the values that were already lying dormant and implicit within us.

So and the next thing I would say about that is you all know this. You just don't know you know it. And so one of the reasons to be to be educated from a literary and historical perspective is that you can come to understand what you already know. Is if you don't understand it then there's an element of your being the element that knows it and acts it out and there's another element which is sort of you as a personality that are completely at odds with one another and that makes you weak it's it makes you something that's divided within itself now you're doing everything you can as a general rule to incorporate this information now for a long time it seems as if as long as we acted it out and represented its symbolically and didn't argue about the assumptions it was more or less okay, but we're past that now and in order for us
To Benefit from the same Protective Structures that our ancestors benefited from we now have to understand what they mean consciously and that's really what young was up to what he was really trying to do was to resurrect deep religious representations from the dead so to speak and to make them conscious so people could line themselves with them again.