Comments on: “Watchmen” Characters Are A Psychological Seesaw http://symbolwatcher.com/2009/03/watchmen-movie-characters-exemplify-psychological-extremes/ The search for meaning in cultural, artistic and dream imagery Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:50:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Writeye http://symbolwatcher.com/2009/03/watchmen-movie-characters-exemplify-psychological-extremes/#comment-72 Writeye Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:51:55 +0000 http://symbolwatcher.com/?p=335#comment-72 Teikari, First, I hope you're feeling much better after your bout with food poisoning. I think you're right that my statement of a hero being the opposite of the eternal boy is inaccurate. I think it is safe to say that the hero is certainly a more conscious and therefore a more psychologically developed state of being than the eternal boy. With this in mind, an apples-to-apples comparison can be -- and is often made -- between the two. Jungian analyst Ester Harding talks in her book 'The I And The Not I' about the hero archetype dividing into two streams, one being the "innocent hero." "This is the theme of the dying and resurrecting gods, a further development of the 'puer aeternus' theme, that has its expression in the lives of many historical figures whose death has led to a resurrection of the spiritual ideas and ideals for which they died . . . But the mythogem of the hero can take on another form, the emphasis falling not on self-denial and submission, but on courage and struggle." It is this latter embodiment of the hero that I was thinking of when I wrote my earlier response to you. In 'Man and His Symbols,'Joseph L. Henderson writes: "These hero myths vary enormously in detail, but the more closely one examines them the more one sees that structurally they are very similar. They have, that is to say, a universal pattern. . . . In many of these stories the early weakness of the hero is balanced by the appearance of strong tutelary figures -- or guardians -- who enable him to perform the superhuman tasks that he cannot perform unaided. . . . The essential function of the heroic myth is the development of the individual's own ego-consciousness -- his awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses . . . once the individual has passed his initial test and can enter the mature phase of life, the hero myth loses its relevance." So it seems to me that the hero can be both a journey of human transformation and an archetypal energy that can be adopted psychologically as a personality. I thought Ester Harding's insight about the innocent hero was interesting. She says they overcome "not by resistance but by adaptation." She mentioned Christ and I thought of Joan of Arc as another example. I wonder if she says the innocent hero is an evolution of the puer aeternus because their hero journeys didn't begin from the standpoint of discernment -- say being consciously aware of good and evil and choosing good over evil. Their journeys began with a calling, some voice, drive or yearning within them that they could not ignore, they had to sucumb to it. I really appreciate your taking the time to post your thought-provoking comments Teikari. Teikari,
First, I hope you’re feeling much better after your bout with food poisoning. I think you’re right that my statement of a hero being the opposite of the eternal boy is inaccurate. I think it is safe to say that the hero is certainly a more conscious and therefore a more psychologically developed state of being than the eternal boy. With this in mind, an apples-to-apples comparison can be — and is often made — between the two.

Jungian analyst Ester Harding talks in her book ‘The I And The Not I’ about the hero archetype dividing into two streams, one being the “innocent hero.” “This is the theme of the dying and resurrecting gods, a further development of the ‘puer aeternus’ theme, that has its expression in the lives of many historical figures whose death has led to a resurrection of the spiritual ideas and ideals for which they died . . . But the mythogem of the hero can take on another form, the emphasis falling not on self-denial and submission, but on courage and struggle.” It is this latter embodiment of the hero that I was thinking of when I wrote my earlier response to you.

In ‘Man and His Symbols,’Joseph L. Henderson writes: “These hero myths vary enormously in detail, but the more closely one examines them the more one sees that structurally they are very similar. They have, that is to say, a universal pattern. . . . In many of these stories the early weakness of the hero is balanced by the appearance of strong tutelary figures — or guardians — who enable him to perform the superhuman tasks that he cannot perform unaided. . . . The essential function of the heroic myth is the development of the individual’s own ego-consciousness — his awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses . . . once the individual has passed his initial test and can enter the mature phase of life, the hero myth loses its relevance.”

So it seems to me that the hero can be both a journey of human transformation and an archetypal energy that can be adopted psychologically as a personality. I thought Ester Harding’s insight about the innocent hero was interesting. She says they overcome “not by resistance but by adaptation.” She mentioned Christ and I thought of Joan of Arc as another example. I wonder if she says the innocent hero is an evolution of the puer aeternus because their hero journeys didn’t begin from the standpoint of discernment — say being consciously aware of good and evil and choosing good over evil. Their journeys began with a calling, some voice, drive or yearning within them that they could not ignore, they had to sucumb to it.

I really appreciate your taking the time to post your thought-provoking comments Teikari.

]]>