Chapter 3 The Anima Between Heroes
-
In what way do you relate to the dark elements (i.e. malevolence, envy, manipulation) of the Anima/Animus archetype depicted in the tale?
This chapter, like the last, I found a little lacking. Von Franz mentions that she recognizes the story she analyzes is very similar to the other one she provided for us. Rather than providing significant motifs in the new story that made it worthy of rehashing, I felt like the experience of this chapter was schizophrenic, never fully developing any particular idea and instead forcing too many symbols into one chapter. I’m also growing a little tired of her strange explanations of Christian symbolism and doctrine 🤪
It’s funny to me, because she complains about Christianity, but then doesn’t provide an analysis of these Jungian concepts separate from Christianity, only as they function within Christianity. I have historically had a profound admiration and respect for Jungian ideas but the more I engage with them, the more I’m finding a lot left to be desired. She is trying to make the argument that these are objective functions within the psyche worth studying, but then subjectively applies them to Christian symbolism that, while I understand medieval times were Christian, if these stories truly held perennial wisdom, we could separate the Wisdom out from Christian projection.
That being said, I agree largely with her complaints about the imbalances Christianity can cause if one is not well versed in Christian doctrine.
All of that aside, and to answer the question, I find that Ferdinand the Unfaithful is basically a symbol of the Nephesh. He is essentially that voice of the ego that is inflated, self important, and jealous. Similar to the other story, he makes claims that Ferdinand the Faithful can accomplish Herculean tasks (and Ferdinand the Faithful ends up demonstrating they’re really easy if you have animal friends). I interpret this to be similar to the voice I experience in my own head that thinks it can do better than anyone else (meanwhile ignoring any number of factors that might hinder the ability to accomplish the task). Interestingly, even when Ferdinand the Faithful is explicitly told by the his companion’s title not to trust him, Ferdinand the Faithful still chooses to allow him in his circle. This, to me, is a sign of unconsciousness, unlike von Franz’s assertion that Ferdinand the Faithful is the conscious mind. I am reminded of her first chapter where she warns against applying mythological functions to characters in a story as it forces the story into a hypothesis. The unconsciousness of Ferdinand the Faithful is what allows Ferdinand to ignore that the other Ferdinand literally tells him not to trust him. Perhaps this is giving a window into how the conscious mind allows the Shadow in through unconsciousness. She sort of hints at this when she says that there are simply some things in life that must be ignored for the sake of continuing. Perhaps she’ll develop the link between unconsciousness and Evil as we continue to read the book.
Although Fairy Tales are often seen as childish, I do wish that there was more nuance in her discussions about the evil characters. For a book about the Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales, her stories she’s chosen thus far seem to lack the depth that she argues can be found in these stories. I’m not entirely sure if this a translation issue, a cultural issue (on my end), or just that this was written at a particular time. In fact, this WAS written before Jung’s Red Book came out, which is a pretty significant disadvantage for von Franz and her ability to express Jungian ideas.More thoughts have come to me:
von Franz only briefly mentions in this chapter the idea of Anima Possession. This was significant to me, though it wasn’t really explored too deeply in the chapter. Anima Possession is seen as a serious root of male violence in Jungian psychology, whether physical or emotional or otherwise, and so I have been shocked that there hasn’t been more written about that as a root of Evil in the male psyche.
Anima Possession is generally described as what happens when a man tries to cut himself off from his Anima. Conversely, there’s also Animus Possession, which traditionally is described as a woman who has tried to cut herself off from her Animus. Both are accompanied by a high level of unconsciousness and malevolence. Remember, Jung argued that men have Anima as psychic compensation, and women has Animus as psychic compensation for each sex’s respectively sexually polarized psyches. It is a later, Neo Jungian idea to argue that all sexes have Anima and Animus (which aligns more so with the Qabalistic Son & Daughter in everyone’s psyche).
Ferdinand the Faithful appears Anima possessed when he doesn’t heed the warning of Ferdinand the Unfaithful’s unfaithfulness. Although Ferdinand the Faithful is given access to his Anima by being given the keys to the castle, he demonstrates a lack of objectivity and a naïveté. Jung has written a lot about how difficult it is in modern society for a man to connect with the Anima, sometimes holding it in the same light as we hold K&C with the HGA. In this regard, Ferdinand the Faithful is given a MAJOR advantage that he starts off with access to the Anima. Yet, even with his access to the Anima, he has done none of the work to integrate the Anima, and therefore seems to have put his Anima into his subconscious again. This might be why he is so quick to overlook when Ferdinand the Unfaithful admits that he is unfaithful.
He goes on meet the tasks the King assigns him with tears and fears of failure much like the Tailor in the other story. Although Ferdinand has been given access to the Anima, he hasn’t done any of the work to avoid Anima possession. Weirdly, he gets his head cut off and sewn back on despite this (decapitation being a major symbol of initiation). It IS significant that it is the Princess who does this. From a Qabalistic point of view, this initiation makes perfect sense, with the idea that the Princess is the one who performs this operation being maybe even a little on the nose (no pun intended since the King doesn’t have a nose). Without an ending to the story, it’s hard to tell if this initiation results in a positive or significant change in Ferdinand the Faithful.
Usually, one might argue that Ferdinand’s anima possession is tied to a mother complex (especially given what von Franz wrote about the mother complex in the last chapter) though we have no idea what his family life is like. I am hesitant to posit too much on the thread of the mother complex since we don’t actually have any way to hold that up against the story. Nonetheless, Ferdinand the Faithful’s reaction to the King’s tasks and his relative youth point to a mother complex by default according to Jung’s philosophy.
It’s difficult to posit too much on this story in general simply because, as von Franz points out, the story is incomplete. However, the Evil that seems present in this story appears simply as unconsciousness, as even the most malicious character isn’t actively or directly attacking the hero. We don’t even find out what happens to the malicious character, which is a significant difference between most fairy tales (since they are commonly communicating some kind of moral). It is difficult to come up with a theme that ties all of these characters together in the story without some sense of closure. I don’t mean to reiterate, but again, this story felt a little schizophrenic, as if a ton of symbols were thrown at the wall and they wanted to see what would stick.
Perhaps the real Evil of this story then is that it is corrupted and incomplete, rather than a full story
-
System unpinned this topic
-
@Hannah ”Know Thyself!” I don’t think there is any better way of describing the solution to joining the conscious with the unconscious!!
Your comments regarding the end of the chapter prompted some thoughts on the “morally upright”, being that I have lived my life on both sides of the ”morality”. I see that perhaps I have a better perspective than those that have always lived the “Righteous” way and that I may have a better relationship with my own subconscious being. I, too, was disappointed with the chapter and was left unsatisfied by the lack of a conclusion to the story within it. But, what a perfect day to ponder the tension between light and darkness! -
@jjones I also find the references to Christianity to be shoved under a rather vague umbrella. Almost as if there is such a loathing, that it feels like a vendetta against the religion. She also states that “Christianity has cut out the female principle completely in its lower representation, its shadow aspect, and has only accepted the upper, light part within the symbol of the Virgin Mary.”, which I agree that while females are downplayed in Christianity to the extreme, Mary Magdalene has an important role, albeit derogatory to begin with, in the story of Jesus. I look forward to expanding my Jungian knowledge to try to keep up with you guys! I love the deep dives that you have taken me on!
-
In what way do you relate to the dark elements (i.e. malevolence, envy, manipulation) of the Anima/Animus archetype depicted in the tale?
This chapter, like the last, I found a little lacking. Von Franz mentions that she recognizes the story she analyzes is very similar to the other one she provided for us. Rather than providing significant motifs in the new story that made it worthy of rehashing, I felt like the experience of this chapter was schizophrenic, never fully developing any particular idea and instead forcing too many symbols into one chapter. I’m also growing a little tired of her strange explanations of Christian symbolism and doctrine 🤪
It’s funny to me, because she complains about Christianity, but then doesn’t provide an analysis of these Jungian concepts separate from Christianity, only as they function within Christianity. I have historically had a profound admiration and respect for Jungian ideas but the more I engage with them, the more I’m finding a lot left to be desired. She is trying to make the argument that these are objective functions within the psyche worth studying, but then subjectively applies them to Christian symbolism that, while I understand medieval times were Christian, if these stories truly held perennial wisdom, we could separate the Wisdom out from Christian projection.
That being said, I agree largely with her complaints about the imbalances Christianity can cause if one is not well versed in Christian doctrine.
All of that aside, and to answer the question, I find that Ferdinand the Unfaithful is basically a symbol of the Nephesh. He is essentially that voice of the ego that is inflated, self important, and jealous. Similar to the other story, he makes claims that Ferdinand the Faithful can accomplish Herculean tasks (and Ferdinand the Faithful ends up demonstrating they’re really easy if you have animal friends). I interpret this to be similar to the voice I experience in my own head that thinks it can do better than anyone else (meanwhile ignoring any number of factors that might hinder the ability to accomplish the task). Interestingly, even when Ferdinand the Faithful is explicitly told by the his companion’s title not to trust him, Ferdinand the Faithful still chooses to allow him in his circle. This, to me, is a sign of unconsciousness, unlike von Franz’s assertion that Ferdinand the Faithful is the conscious mind. I am reminded of her first chapter where she warns against applying mythological functions to characters in a story as it forces the story into a hypothesis. The unconsciousness of Ferdinand the Faithful is what allows Ferdinand to ignore that the other Ferdinand literally tells him not to trust him. Perhaps this is giving a window into how the conscious mind allows the Shadow in through unconsciousness. She sort of hints at this when she says that there are simply some things in life that must be ignored for the sake of continuing. Perhaps she’ll develop the link between unconsciousness and Evil as we continue to read the book.
Although Fairy Tales are often seen as childish, I do wish that there was more nuance in her discussions about the evil characters. For a book about the Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales, her stories she’s chosen thus far seem to lack the depth that she argues can be found in these stories. I’m not entirely sure if this a translation issue, a cultural issue (on my end), or just that this was written at a particular time. In fact, this WAS written before Jung’s Red Book came out, which is a pretty significant disadvantage for von Franz and her ability to express Jungian ideas.@jjones I totally agree.. this chapter I grew concerned about how we were going to finish this book haha because the last two were pretty mid. The fairy tales she chooses are uninspiring and like you said, don't feel as connected to archetypal forces as she made them out to be. Perhaps this is because we have no personal connection to them? Maybe if she was using references that we were more familiar with, we'd be able to go deeper, like for example, popular movies and books of this century? Otherwise, it does feel pretty outdated.
-
More thoughts have come to me:
von Franz only briefly mentions in this chapter the idea of Anima Possession. This was significant to me, though it wasn’t really explored too deeply in the chapter. Anima Possession is seen as a serious root of male violence in Jungian psychology, whether physical or emotional or otherwise, and so I have been shocked that there hasn’t been more written about that as a root of Evil in the male psyche.
Anima Possession is generally described as what happens when a man tries to cut himself off from his Anima. Conversely, there’s also Animus Possession, which traditionally is described as a woman who has tried to cut herself off from her Animus. Both are accompanied by a high level of unconsciousness and malevolence. Remember, Jung argued that men have Anima as psychic compensation, and women has Animus as psychic compensation for each sex’s respectively sexually polarized psyches. It is a later, Neo Jungian idea to argue that all sexes have Anima and Animus (which aligns more so with the Qabalistic Son & Daughter in everyone’s psyche).
Ferdinand the Faithful appears Anima possessed when he doesn’t heed the warning of Ferdinand the Unfaithful’s unfaithfulness. Although Ferdinand the Faithful is given access to his Anima by being given the keys to the castle, he demonstrates a lack of objectivity and a naïveté. Jung has written a lot about how difficult it is in modern society for a man to connect with the Anima, sometimes holding it in the same light as we hold K&C with the HGA. In this regard, Ferdinand the Faithful is given a MAJOR advantage that he starts off with access to the Anima. Yet, even with his access to the Anima, he has done none of the work to integrate the Anima, and therefore seems to have put his Anima into his subconscious again. This might be why he is so quick to overlook when Ferdinand the Unfaithful admits that he is unfaithful.
He goes on meet the tasks the King assigns him with tears and fears of failure much like the Tailor in the other story. Although Ferdinand has been given access to the Anima, he hasn’t done any of the work to avoid Anima possession. Weirdly, he gets his head cut off and sewn back on despite this (decapitation being a major symbol of initiation). It IS significant that it is the Princess who does this. From a Qabalistic point of view, this initiation makes perfect sense, with the idea that the Princess is the one who performs this operation being maybe even a little on the nose (no pun intended since the King doesn’t have a nose). Without an ending to the story, it’s hard to tell if this initiation results in a positive or significant change in Ferdinand the Faithful.
Usually, one might argue that Ferdinand’s anima possession is tied to a mother complex (especially given what von Franz wrote about the mother complex in the last chapter) though we have no idea what his family life is like. I am hesitant to posit too much on the thread of the mother complex since we don’t actually have any way to hold that up against the story. Nonetheless, Ferdinand the Faithful’s reaction to the King’s tasks and his relative youth point to a mother complex by default according to Jung’s philosophy.
It’s difficult to posit too much on this story in general simply because, as von Franz points out, the story is incomplete. However, the Evil that seems present in this story appears simply as unconsciousness, as even the most malicious character isn’t actively or directly attacking the hero. We don’t even find out what happens to the malicious character, which is a significant difference between most fairy tales (since they are commonly communicating some kind of moral). It is difficult to come up with a theme that ties all of these characters together in the story without some sense of closure. I don’t mean to reiterate, but again, this story felt a little schizophrenic, as if a ton of symbols were thrown at the wall and they wanted to see what would stick.
Perhaps the real Evil of this story then is that it is corrupted and incomplete, rather than a full story
@jjones A few things come to mind while reading your post...
Are the anima and animus akin to "spirit of the feminine" and "spirit of the masculine"?
When you say Ferdinand the Faithful is Anima Possessed, does that mean the "spirit of the feminine" is cut off from his consciousness? Is this shown in his naiveté?
Ferdinand the Faithful reminds me of what I was talking to Avi about the other day, how anime protagonists tend to be foolish characters who are outcasts or who have never amounted to anything, but have unusual endurance and luck, which makes their will virtually unstoppable. There is something in that motif that has captured the human imagination so deeply, it makes me think of Don Quixote as one of the first novels who has a character like this.
Is Ferdinand the Faithful a puer figure?
The princess as the one who cuts away and heals reminds me of the story of Isis and Osiris, another initiation myth! The princess (anima?) seems to be commonly represented as initiator in myths, right?
-
@Hannah ”Know Thyself!” I don’t think there is any better way of describing the solution to joining the conscious with the unconscious!!
Your comments regarding the end of the chapter prompted some thoughts on the “morally upright”, being that I have lived my life on both sides of the ”morality”. I see that perhaps I have a better perspective than those that have always lived the “Righteous” way and that I may have a better relationship with my own subconscious being. I, too, was disappointed with the chapter and was left unsatisfied by the lack of a conclusion to the story within it. But, what a perfect day to ponder the tension between light and darkness!@melvingiganticus yes, that tension between light and dark is so interesting! I really like how @anael_lucis described it in her previous post about how Christians hide their selfishness behind a mask of self-righteousness and humility. How we all do that to some degree... I remember being so afraid of what might lurk in my subconscious before exploring it.
I recently read a book called Play Nice by Rachel Harrison, which was so good and very scary. It was about a possessed house by a demon and a young woman's exploration of her childhood after her mom's death. It brought to mind how important our attention is, demonic energies love to feed off fear and repulsion which is increased when we hide away shadow contents. Releasing that energy by directing it into new images disempowers that force's control over our psyche.
I think that is why I like haunted house stories so much, because the home is a symbol of the psyche, and what really haunts a home are unresolved tensions, violence, unspoken words, devalued emotions, and so on, which we repress for "polite society." There is a kind of diabolical satisfaction in the controlled burn, so to speak, of these forces to disrupt rigid channels and unleash a deeper, more multi-faceted truth of the universe.
-
@jjones A few things come to mind while reading your post...
Are the anima and animus akin to "spirit of the feminine" and "spirit of the masculine"?
When you say Ferdinand the Faithful is Anima Possessed, does that mean the "spirit of the feminine" is cut off from his consciousness? Is this shown in his naiveté?
Ferdinand the Faithful reminds me of what I was talking to Avi about the other day, how anime protagonists tend to be foolish characters who are outcasts or who have never amounted to anything, but have unusual endurance and luck, which makes their will virtually unstoppable. There is something in that motif that has captured the human imagination so deeply, it makes me think of Don Quixote as one of the first novels who has a character like this.
Is Ferdinand the Faithful a puer figure?
The princess as the one who cuts away and heals reminds me of the story of Isis and Osiris, another initiation myth! The princess (anima?) seems to be commonly represented as initiator in myths, right?
@Hannah Excellent question! The short answer is, yes, according to traditional Jungian theory.
Jung believed that the male psyche compensated itself with the Anima, all of the feminine aspects that the male psyche tries to shove into the Shadow. The Animus, conversely, is all of the male aspects of the female psyche that the female psyche tries to shove in the Shadow. Jung, unfortunately, did not develop these ideas past this, even though they are some of his most essential ideas. Since he wasn't around for modern gender theory, he unfortunately believed that these are objective aspects of each sex's respective psyches, and did not separate biology from gender. On the contrary, this was his explanation for the biological basis of gender.
As far as the modern definition of these terms go, it depends on who you ask to define them. James Hillman, for example, argued that Anima refers to that interior space we perceive in the psyche, arguing that the function of being a container is that of the Anima. The Animus, in this view, becomes extraversion, or all of the outward, physical expressions of Self that one is able to produce.
Israel Regardie's definition is my favorite, however. Regardie argued that Anima is the Princess of Malkuth that must become Queen in Binah. The Animus is the Prince that must marry and become King in Chokmah. He also argued that everyone has both Anima and Animus. I prefer this definition of these terms since there is a progression implied that captures what I imagine was closer to Jung's experience of these principles. In this regard (no pun intended), the Isis and Osiris myth lines up really well with Regardie's definitions!
Anima Possession, as I'm sure you can imagine by all of the above, is equally difficult to define. The most basic definition I can give is that a man experiences Anima Possession when they are in disharmony with the subjective (which Jung held to be the feminine) aspects of the psyche. There is a spectrum of expression that comes with this. The most common expression is that stage the psyche reaches when it is socialized as a male in Western Society before initiation. It could be broadly put as toxic masculinity (by denying or controlling the "feminine" aspects of the psyche, the feminine aspects paradoxically rule the psyche as everything gets formulated as a reaction to the perceived threat of femininity similar to the dynamics of projection and "splitting"). I fear that "toxic masculinity" connotes the "alpha male" type of behavior, but there is also a form of toxic masculinity where the male is extremely submissive and insecure, ineffectual, impotent, etc. (as I'm sure you've experienced some of these personality types in the wild). I'm unsure if "Alpha Male" behavior is part of Anima Possession, since I more often hear it in relation to the latter half of the toxic masculinity spectrum. Specifically, Anima Possession is heavily related to the Mother Complex. The experience of Anima Possession is archetypally the male who cannot see the female for who she truly is, instead mistaking her for the projection he's created. This ability to cloud the vision with the Anima can affect the perception of humans, objects, and places. Jung stated that the Anima clouds the vision when the male psyche ignores it because the Anima is seeking acknowledgement. Since the conscious mind is rejecting the Anima, it causes cognitive dissonance and internal conflict, leading to dysfunction in everyday life.
I really love that you connect Ferdinand the Faithful, anime protagonists, and Don Quixote. I had never made that connection but I think I know exactly what you mean.
In my opinion, yes, Ferdinand the Faithful is a puer type of character. He's a little to quick to trust people, and he's naive. He also demonstrates some of the Mother Complex I was referring to when he reacts to each task with feelings of hopelessness. The Mother Complex is a very nuanced piece of Jungian theory that I'm struggling to simplify in a way that does it justice without using overly simplistic gendered terms, but perhaps the complex only functions because of overly simplistic gendered terms. At it's very core, the Mother Complex could be described as the state of consciousness when the individual has outgrown the nest, yet refuses to leave home. The individual's life eventually becomes sterile, hollow, and dark (think of the realm of Hekate and Binah, Hekate being one of the most popular symbols of the "Dark Mother").
Ferdinand the Faithful reacts to his ordeals as if he is not ready to "leave home". The way that an individual responds to stimuli that upset bodily homeostasis is often directly linked with their psyche's ability handle uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, the Unknown, the Other, all of those things that exist "outside". Ferdinand's reactions demonstrate the lack of self confidence that comes with experience from leaving home. His naivete also demonstrates that he was sheltered and has not yet learned the harder lessons of life (especially when it comes to trust). "Sheltering" is often linked with an overbearing Mother in Jungian theory. Ferdinand may have even enjoyed the sheltering, as it is often an ego defense mechanism, and would explain why he's so comfortable and then so not comfortable.
This is part of why the beheading and reattaching of Ferdinand's head is so significant to me. In the way of Jungian and Qabalistic interpretation, that almost seems like a really subtle hint at an initiation, but it's lack of development in the story leaves a lot left to be desired. It's almost thrown in there, but according to Jungian theory, without some form of initiation with the Anima, the male psyche will deteriorate over the course of their sterile life. This makes the beheading extremely important for how the story makes sense, but instead it just feels like another symbol thrown at a wall to see if it sticks
-
@jjones I also find the references to Christianity to be shoved under a rather vague umbrella. Almost as if there is such a loathing, that it feels like a vendetta against the religion. She also states that “Christianity has cut out the female principle completely in its lower representation, its shadow aspect, and has only accepted the upper, light part within the symbol of the Virgin Mary.”, which I agree that while females are downplayed in Christianity to the extreme, Mary Magdalene has an important role, albeit derogatory to begin with, in the story of Jesus. I look forward to expanding my Jungian knowledge to try to keep up with you guys! I love the deep dives that you have taken me on!
@melvingiganticus Right?! It's like, "Okay we get it, you hate Christianity, haven't you considered that Christians aren't your audience?"
My only thought is that, since it was written in the 70s, she was being "edgy" for her time, writing about the Shadow and how Christianity neglects it hahaha
-
@Hannah Excellent question! The short answer is, yes, according to traditional Jungian theory.
Jung believed that the male psyche compensated itself with the Anima, all of the feminine aspects that the male psyche tries to shove into the Shadow. The Animus, conversely, is all of the male aspects of the female psyche that the female psyche tries to shove in the Shadow. Jung, unfortunately, did not develop these ideas past this, even though they are some of his most essential ideas. Since he wasn't around for modern gender theory, he unfortunately believed that these are objective aspects of each sex's respective psyches, and did not separate biology from gender. On the contrary, this was his explanation for the biological basis of gender.
As far as the modern definition of these terms go, it depends on who you ask to define them. James Hillman, for example, argued that Anima refers to that interior space we perceive in the psyche, arguing that the function of being a container is that of the Anima. The Animus, in this view, becomes extraversion, or all of the outward, physical expressions of Self that one is able to produce.
Israel Regardie's definition is my favorite, however. Regardie argued that Anima is the Princess of Malkuth that must become Queen in Binah. The Animus is the Prince that must marry and become King in Chokmah. He also argued that everyone has both Anima and Animus. I prefer this definition of these terms since there is a progression implied that captures what I imagine was closer to Jung's experience of these principles. In this regard (no pun intended), the Isis and Osiris myth lines up really well with Regardie's definitions!
Anima Possession, as I'm sure you can imagine by all of the above, is equally difficult to define. The most basic definition I can give is that a man experiences Anima Possession when they are in disharmony with the subjective (which Jung held to be the feminine) aspects of the psyche. There is a spectrum of expression that comes with this. The most common expression is that stage the psyche reaches when it is socialized as a male in Western Society before initiation. It could be broadly put as toxic masculinity (by denying or controlling the "feminine" aspects of the psyche, the feminine aspects paradoxically rule the psyche as everything gets formulated as a reaction to the perceived threat of femininity similar to the dynamics of projection and "splitting"). I fear that "toxic masculinity" connotes the "alpha male" type of behavior, but there is also a form of toxic masculinity where the male is extremely submissive and insecure, ineffectual, impotent, etc. (as I'm sure you've experienced some of these personality types in the wild). I'm unsure if "Alpha Male" behavior is part of Anima Possession, since I more often hear it in relation to the latter half of the toxic masculinity spectrum. Specifically, Anima Possession is heavily related to the Mother Complex. The experience of Anima Possession is archetypally the male who cannot see the female for who she truly is, instead mistaking her for the projection he's created. This ability to cloud the vision with the Anima can affect the perception of humans, objects, and places. Jung stated that the Anima clouds the vision when the male psyche ignores it because the Anima is seeking acknowledgement. Since the conscious mind is rejecting the Anima, it causes cognitive dissonance and internal conflict, leading to dysfunction in everyday life.
I really love that you connect Ferdinand the Faithful, anime protagonists, and Don Quixote. I had never made that connection but I think I know exactly what you mean.
In my opinion, yes, Ferdinand the Faithful is a puer type of character. He's a little to quick to trust people, and he's naive. He also demonstrates some of the Mother Complex I was referring to when he reacts to each task with feelings of hopelessness. The Mother Complex is a very nuanced piece of Jungian theory that I'm struggling to simplify in a way that does it justice without using overly simplistic gendered terms, but perhaps the complex only functions because of overly simplistic gendered terms. At it's very core, the Mother Complex could be described as the state of consciousness when the individual has outgrown the nest, yet refuses to leave home. The individual's life eventually becomes sterile, hollow, and dark (think of the realm of Hekate and Binah, Hekate being one of the most popular symbols of the "Dark Mother").
Ferdinand the Faithful reacts to his ordeals as if he is not ready to "leave home". The way that an individual responds to stimuli that upset bodily homeostasis is often directly linked with their psyche's ability handle uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, the Unknown, the Other, all of those things that exist "outside". Ferdinand's reactions demonstrate the lack of self confidence that comes with experience from leaving home. His naivete also demonstrates that he was sheltered and has not yet learned the harder lessons of life (especially when it comes to trust). "Sheltering" is often linked with an overbearing Mother in Jungian theory. Ferdinand may have even enjoyed the sheltering, as it is often an ego defense mechanism, and would explain why he's so comfortable and then so not comfortable.
This is part of why the beheading and reattaching of Ferdinand's head is so significant to me. In the way of Jungian and Qabalistic interpretation, that almost seems like a really subtle hint at an initiation, but it's lack of development in the story leaves a lot left to be desired. It's almost thrown in there, but according to Jungian theory, without some form of initiation with the Anima, the male psyche will deteriorate over the course of their sterile life. This makes the beheading extremely important for how the story makes sense, but instead it just feels like another symbol thrown at a wall to see if it sticks
@jjones that makes a lot of sense and I feel very similarly about the outdated nature of Jung's use of gender symbols. Honestly, this subject really gets me going! Occultism uses a symbol set that was developed over the last hundreds of years or so (or more, really) which lends well to packing a psychic punch but also might resist adaptation to modern understandings. The symbol set is a dynamic, living body of forms which embody particular forces, but these forms naturally change as the context of human consciousness changes.
For me, I like to imagine the polarity of Binah and Chokmah as representing the peculiar phenomena of the created world as naturally reducing down to a binary system of one small cell (sperm) and big cell (egg), yet the gender variations of this sexual difference is vast across life forms. I also like the idea of infinite expansiveness (Nuit) and singularity (Hadit). This is different from a cultural understanding of "woman" and "man."
Your description of the Mother Complex is so fascinating... and one I will sigh inevitably carry with me when my son grows up and naturally separates further and further into an individual. Right now when he is such a small and sweet baby I am in the joys of oneness with him but eventually he will contain within himself a private and complex world where mom is not needed.
Honestly, the Mother Complex kind of reminds me of Christians, with Jesus being the mother who is there to absolve all sins. Superficial Christians tend to give off an energy of impotence, like they are uncomfortable with their own sexual, creative energy which necessitates a strength of responsibility. Oftentimes when we sacrifice our autonomy to perceived leaders, we also sacrifice our vital life force that directs will.
-
@jjones that makes a lot of sense and I feel very similarly about the outdated nature of Jung's use of gender symbols. Honestly, this subject really gets me going! Occultism uses a symbol set that was developed over the last hundreds of years or so (or more, really) which lends well to packing a psychic punch but also might resist adaptation to modern understandings. The symbol set is a dynamic, living body of forms which embody particular forces, but these forms naturally change as the context of human consciousness changes.
For me, I like to imagine the polarity of Binah and Chokmah as representing the peculiar phenomena of the created world as naturally reducing down to a binary system of one small cell (sperm) and big cell (egg), yet the gender variations of this sexual difference is vast across life forms. I also like the idea of infinite expansiveness (Nuit) and singularity (Hadit). This is different from a cultural understanding of "woman" and "man."
Your description of the Mother Complex is so fascinating... and one I will sigh inevitably carry with me when my son grows up and naturally separates further and further into an individual. Right now when he is such a small and sweet baby I am in the joys of oneness with him but eventually he will contain within himself a private and complex world where mom is not needed.
Honestly, the Mother Complex kind of reminds me of Christians, with Jesus being the mother who is there to absolve all sins. Superficial Christians tend to give off an energy of impotence, like they are uncomfortable with their own sexual, creative energy which necessitates a strength of responsibility. Oftentimes when we sacrifice our autonomy to perceived leaders, we also sacrifice our vital life force that directs will.
@Hannah Indeed! I appreciate your response. I will be fascinated to see how you navigate that point when your son reaches the teenage years, as, in my experience, that was really when I became aware of my own Mother Complex (On a side note, Crowley writes that the Zodiacal sign of Cancer just is the sign of the Mother Complex, and Jim corresponds the sign of Cancer with the Scarlet Woman in 776 1/2. As a Cancer Sun who grew up without a biological father but had a strong attachment to mother, I feel that this explains a lot of my own habits, hang ups, shining moments, etc. hahaha). I have inferred that generally, the Mother Complex doesn't affect a biological male until they hit puberty (I cannot speak for all sexes, hence my specificity in biological males :-)). My own theory is that the shock of puberty and sexuality shatters the image of the initial image of Mother in the psyche. I theorize that someone who is maybe more equipped with tools of self soothing (and psychic Understanding) as well more comfortable with sexuality may be able to perceive the Mother Complex for what it is and avoid a more violent and painful separation. According to modern developmental psychology, parents simply need to be "good enough," and once the child is capable of realizing that their parents were "good enough" (i.e. that the child's needs were met enough of the time that they are reasonably equipped for the world we are born into) then they can move on from parental hang ups and focus on the journey of self discovery (though parental complexes never leave and we are constantly trying to live in harmony with our own psychic images of Mom & Dad).
I do agree that Christianity is HEAVILY to blame for the epidemic of the Mother Complex plaguing young men in today's age (in fact, I think this is perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the Manosphere, homophobia, and the death pangs of the Old Aeon, since Christianity has really failed a lot of Male youths). Christianity's sexual repression and emphasis on celibacy creates Eunuchs, which only contributes to male impotence. Although we are not physical castrating people in the realm of Malkuth, the bastardization of Christianity indoctrinating people today creates a sort of spiritual Eunuch. I have theorized that when Crowley talks about building the Wand as a Magickal Weapon and it's relation to the Phallus, this is part of what he's referring to (healing the spiritual castration that occurs from these types of issues). I've spoken to a lot of young men who have described essentially this, that they are spiritually castrated. Christianity's blatant repression of sexuality prevents everyone from becoming comfortable with expressing sexuality, and this is precisely what Freud was pointing to when he wrote about the Oedipus Complex. Failing to sort through sexual projections breeds a strange codependent relationship in which the child does not develop the self assurance and resiliency to overcome obstacles since Mother knows best and Mother protects. Ironically, this is a source of homophobia in the male psyche, because on one hand, the male psyche (or the socialized male western psyche) is getting pulled towards the opposite sex, but it has not developed any of the shifts in awareness to truly appreciate the opposite sex. Instead, because Mother provides and protects, the individual is completely blinded by the Anima (which in this case exists solely as a projection of their Mother) and becomes possessed by it. Why would the individual need to treat the opposite properly when their experience of the opposite sex has been nothing but codependency with Mother? People that are Anima Possessed generally aren't even aware that they are expressing projections of a fantasy of the opposite sex, and hence why we get this weird behavior in some men where they believe they are objectively treating women how they should as heterosexuals, even though all they do is crush femininity and kill any real signs of eroticism. It largely stems from that lack of emotional intelligence and/or comfortability with the force of Eros.
The cognitive dissonance these conflicting signals create are precisely what has bred incel culture and the type of man who claims to love women but refuses anything projected as womanly, only feeling safe to show affection towards men. In this type of Psychic Structure, the individual projects femininity as the Other and corresponds the concept of "Woman" with all of those other fears of the Other. It is no wonder that there is a correlation between all of the forms of prejudice and this disconnect between men and women. The same cognitive laziness that puts woman in the Shadow of heterosexual men is the same cognitive laziness that breeds all of the other forms of prejudice, creating a Shadow of size and magnitude that drove even the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche insane. If you know the name of the Qlippothic force that causes this, please share, as I aspire to discover the name of this demon that is plaguing society (I say this humorously, at the risk of coming off too strong since it is sometimes difficult to communicate tone over text and I realize that the Qlippoth can be a touchy issue for some).
Unfortunately, since these peoples' sexuality is so unconscious, if you point to their Shadow, the victim of this type of cognitive dissonance cannot even comprehend that they are mistreating women (and that it's impossible to claim heterosexuality if you mistreat women), often resorting to gaslighting and homophobia. This homophobia is a symptom of this disconnect between the biological imperative to mate with the opposite sex and the conscious mind's fixation on the Anima (at expense of women as people and human beings because this personality type is incapable of looking past their projection of the opposite sex). Since heterosexuality is expected in young men, when they fail to experience the same level of attraction that was experienced in puberty from hormonal imbalance, they repress the feeling that heterosexuality is not yet authentic to them (since they haven't done the Work to appreciate the opposite sex, the opposite sex being the symbol of the Other since they are told that there is a hard distinction between men and women) and this expectation vs reality attacks the conscious mind (since it prefers simple answers). Interestingly Freud argued that homosexuality is the default sexuality for humanity, because it is easier to admire something you are (which is an inherently homosexual attitude), and that it takes work to develop healthy relationships with the opposite sex, since they are initially perceived as a different species of being. So naturally, the conscious mind rebels saying, "I'm straight! My partner must not be perfect otherwise I would love her because I am objectively straight and it is objectively wrong for men to show emotion, much less admit that all of my emotions are directed towards particularly male centric interests and perspectives!" Of course, this is exacerbated by the Christian virtues of Guilt and Shame, since Pride (a Thelemic virtue according to the Book of the Law) would require a level of homosexuality (for example, to appreciate the man you are would require a comparison to other men, and for a man to compare themselves to other men is an inherently homosexual action since naturally some men are going to be more appealing than others). That male anger towards women for no reason other than that women exist and seemingly withhold the love and affection of their projection of Mother is a direct consequence of this psychic structure because the conscious mind is essentially angry at itself for failing to integrate what it perceives as the Other. It hurts men, women, and trans folk across the board. It really grinds my gears because it's no one's fault that society is what it is, and yet we are forced to deal with and take seriously these ridiculous projections as the consequences of society's Shadow whether we like it or not. It's no wonder Jesus got so angry prior to Crucifixion, as he was probably dealing with a similar level of frustration at his society's Shadow.
Hahaha I keep writing huge walls of text, thank you everyone for your attention. I have a bad habit of writing essays instead of short responses.