Robert Bly Lecture: Passion and Purpose in Men and Women (1988)
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 02. 2015
- Robert Bly makes a bold and sweeping appeal for the idea of purpose among men, building upon the thoughts of D.H. Lawrence in 'Fantasia of the Unconscious.' "There's never a woman in the world that will ever be able to understand the sacredness of the spirit of purpose in a man, and there will never be a man on this planet who understands the sacredness of feeling in a woman."
This is an exclusive recording of the 1988 Minnesota Men’s Conference. Register and attend the next Conference by visiting www.minnesotamensconference.com
Founded by Robert Bly in 1984, the Minnesota Men’s Conference celebrates the telling of old stories, the gifts of poetry and music, and opening our hearts to grief, wildness, and joy. We all have a yearning for lives of richness and meaning; this five-day conference is a unique opportunity to enrich ourselves in a community of other men.
Why has taken me 54 years on this planet to discover this man!!!!! But so glad I have. Thankyou Robert and while your years left on earth may be numbered, your teachings and wisdom will live on forever mate.
❣️🙏👑💫💫💫💫
Thank you for your work and discoveries, Robert.
So glad I found this channel, beautiful
Thank you so much for these ...
This is Bly at his unconscious worst. I'm surprised that Hillman sat through this sort of fantasizing without comment. For example the current thinking is that most cave painters were women. The circle of defense image is frankly hilarious. Anyone working with Jung will eventually get to alchemy which DESTROYS gender and categorical thinking. In this Bly is dangerously close to Heidegger's orthodoxy, and there is a word for that: fascism.
Hillman unwound gender in Jung to everyone's relief, and with this sort of shit Bly opens the door for the worst sort of unconscious patriarchy. "Sweet lovemaking" because of women fearing that men will not return from the purposeful journey? Come on!
What about the men who take care of homes and kids? Are they less masculine? Try this with a lens on the Black American culture and see how far that gets you. How about the "ghetto" sex queen stuff? Totally racist. Shame on Bly for not amending his thinking. He even wrote "A little book on the human shadow" where he impugns Wallace Stevens for his shadowy racism and here he is dishing it out!
Kevan Jenson
As I wrote in another comment Joseph Campbell pointed out that gender roles can be of extremely low contrast in certain societies and high contrast in others. But for particular reasons.
I am annoyed by the essentialism too, but I think there can be something said in regards to the various ways certain cultural gender roles contrast and usually the specific reasons related to divisions of labor.
An interesting example is The Navajo, which is a mix of patriarchal and matrilineal culture mix. They are actually descendants of two contrasting traditions in that regard.
Most of the elaborate songs and sand painting are preserved by men. And another set of rituals preserved by women. Traditionally women inherit all property while men herd sheep owned by women.
The men ritual singers are considered similar to “talking god” represented as hermaphroditic corn. And there is some gender segregation.
Compare that to the Hopi where the gender distinctions are far less contrasted in the culture.
And compare that to the Apache where the gender distinctions are much more contrasted.
What would be a smarter thesis of Bly is to say something like this, “Western European based society is going through a shift from less patriarchal to more matrilineal forms and we need to examine what that might mean for men and women.”
However I generally have found many feminists to have an equally romantic simplistic narratives of a matriarchal golden age which has no basis in either archeological evidence or contemporary anthropology.
All of that said I think Bly’s point that there is envy in competing genders is a really interesting.
The mainstream feminist movement has very often transplanted itself onto a patriarchal script (see Hillary Clinton for more details). So the way we are adapting in the USA today both maintains a patriarchal gender contrast and say it wants to eliminate the contrast at the same time which might be a contradiction.
Matthew Kopp Bly was way off base and leaves the door open for more than misogyny. Hillman worked over the literalism of anima animus and gender in both Revisioning Psychology and the Myth of Analysis. For Bly to fantasize and project like this does more damage to Jung’s legacy and to the Men’s Movement than he knows. It’s thru this gap that Jordan Petersen gains his ugly foothold on authenticity. Personally I find any claim to authenticity questionable.
When you evoke native culture we must understand that WE are not able to see what is authentic because we are always looking through our psyche. Always projecting.
Read Hillman on Alchemy to see how the “opus” works on the magus AND the material under process. Thus zysygy, thus contingency, thus freedom not “Truth.” See Rorty.
Kevan Jenson I agree with part of that. I am critical of Peterson as well because he grossly over universalizes.
I read the souls code but I will look up the other books mentioned.
However I do question the idea that there is NO gender essentialism at all. I think there is.
But the problem is the Adolf Bastian idea which influenced Jung. There are universal ideas that are abstract and transcend our ability to know completely and there are folk structural ideas which are the forms they take culture to culture.
I think that there are splits in identity that are directly related to the mother imago and boys typically respond one way and women typically respond another way with a lot of overlap and I don’t think the phenomenon is strictly 100% cultural structuralism.
I know a lot of transgender people who tell me of the dramatic differences of testosterone and estrogen. So that alone is a factor and I think there are instinctual genetic factors as well. As well as phenomenological factors of identifying with parents and adult figures who share similar psychic attributes.
And one of the aspects I agree with Bly is that there are different tunings of the body.
All of that said ever human beings ego is constellated in unique ways and can’t be so easily gender categorized in the final analysis.
And if Individuation work means anything it means encountering what you have rejected in yourself and see in the other which will be a unique journey in direct correlation to a unique constellated ego.
Matthew Kopp no doubt there is some biology but the manner of interpretation of that biology must be taken into account. Psyche is larger than science and Bly gets that wrong. See Kuhn and Feyerabend on science as conditioned by psyche. Every scientific “fact” must be conditioned by psyche. This does not imply that science is not factual but adds a genealogy to the inquiry. Bly ignored his genealogy at his peril. This is Nietzsche 101. Jung is a child of FN after all!
Kevan Jenson Yes I believe that.
Many people believe Foucault and Jung are contradictions and I often cite both. They are obviously different, but Both employed Nietzsche’s genealogy approach to demonstrate how ideas shift over historical time. Foucault in a more rational way but Jung in a way that is beyond rational.
Jung interestingly used Heraclitus idea of enantiodromia. And Derrida uses the same concept. That the meaning of a symbol has multiple meanings and emerge like a rhizome.
A good example of why Foucault is useful is he pointed out the gay movement politics wanted to create a Universal unchanging concept of Gay and Foucault rightly rejected the idea as ridiculous.
Jung rejected the idea as well, and postulated several theories including the possibility that the entire human species has a pan-psyche intelligence that generated more gay individuals during times when population control is necessary and prohibition of homosexuality when procreation is more important like ancient Israelites.
And then said you can see a pan-psyche-Intelligence in the genealogy of symbols and how they are interpreted. It sounds far fetched, but the logic of it is very interesting whether true are not.
I don’t put Bly in the same territory as Peterson. Peterson is completely interested in preserving a social status quo which will likely destroy all of civilization. Where as Bly can go way past that.
For example Bly pins the alienation of men from men on the industrial revolution which is a Marxist idea. Peterson will never entertain such an idea of blaming industrialization because it does not fit his political agenda.
Bly would say Reagan was an adult child of alcoholic and in denial, while Peterson pushes right wing apology theory.