More Than a Man

Source: must have been nearly two decades ago. I was a featured guest at a Horror/Fantasy conference in Georgia. It was barely organized, any scheduling left to spontaneous generation. Largely a waste of time. So I spent much of the weekend in my motel room reading Walter Kaufmann’s translation of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And as I read, a peculiar realization dawned on me. I suddenly realized that it had fallen to me to be this generation’s Zarathustra (hence, of course, the title of this column). It would be my task to carry forward the work of Nietzsche and his fictional alter ego, bringing their insights to bear on today’s world, today’s issues. To proclaim the Death of God and what it means to us. To lay bare the nonsense that chokes our discourse, the stupidity and fustian that render futile contemporary discussion. To expose the chicanery of religion—and of atheism.

Megalomania? I’m not ashamed of it.

Batman BuddhaBut I do want to reflect on it. When discussing the coming of the Superman it is not surprising that one’s mind turns to superheroes, and to their movies. In Batman Begins we see Ras al Ghul training Bruce Wayne high in the Himalayas. He explains to his apprentice that, in order to accomplish his mission as a superhero he must “become more than a man,” hence the costumed persona with cape and cowl. The bat-suit is no mere exotic set of clothes. It is a kind of second skin denoting Bruce Wayne’s transformation, his transcendence of mere humanity, “more than a man.”

We see the same metamorphosis in another movie, Captain America: The First Avenger, in the scene when Steve Rogers has rescued hundreds of American POWs from the dungeons of the Red Skull. As he leads them, limping but victorious, into the American camp, his friend Bucky Barnes raises a cheer for the new hero: “Let’s hear it for Captain America!” Before this, the man had been Steve Rogers. But in this moment he has taken upon his broad shoulders the mantle of the mythic hero archetype. His costume and title denote he is henceforth something more than a man: a living incarnation of collective America.

It’s nothing new. Is Queen Elizabeth entitled to live in such opulence? As an individual, not necessarily. But she’s a living symbol of the majesty of the United Kingdom. The opulence, the majesty is not hers; it’s that of Great Britain. Maybe you don’t buy that. Maybe you’d prefer they did away with all that pomp(osity).  Make it like East Germany. I guess things just can’t be mundane enough for you. The People’s Republic of the Rainy Day. Well, as Bluto Blutarsky once said, “You can kiss my ass.” Or, I guess, the Queen’s ass. I don’t know which would be worse, actually.

To go from one great thinker to another, Carl Jung has helpful stuff to say on our subject. What I am talking about is what he calls “inflation of the archetype.” Our Unconscious is hardwired with a galaxy of images: numbers, geometric figures, mythic types, etc. These last include the Crone, the Axis Mundi, the Hero, the Wise Man, etc. Sometimes an individual comes to identify with one of these archetypes to the point where it defines him. The danger is that such an individual may become completely consumed, or subsumed, in the archetype, and then you have a nut who thinks he’s Napoleon.

Stephan A. Hoeller puts it well: “The worship of the archetypes implies their overevaluation, which frequently leads to the personality being possessed by an archetype. The ghastly apparition of spiritual pride soon rears its swollen head, and, instead of utilizing the power of the archetypes, individuals come to imagine that they have become a divine archetype themselves. [This] reduces the power of the gods to the level of the psychic caperings of fools and madmen.”  (The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, pp. 126-127).

C.G. Jung by Jerry Bacikiz

But you don’t have to go off the deep end. Jung once found himself assuming the persona of the second-century Gnostic teacher Basilides. In this exalted state he penned his Seven Sermons to the Dead. (I wonder if any students of Gnosticism actually count this writing among the works of Basilides? If so, it would be the only one extant, since all the others were destroyed by the Catholic Church’s Bomb Squad!)

Paul Tillich’s Christology would seem to fit Jung’s understanding. Tillich considered that Jesus “proves and confirms his character as the Christ in the sacrifice of himself as Jesus to himself as the Christ.” Jesus yielded himself up to the “Christ” archetype which already existed. (This, by the way, is the element of truth in C.S. Lewis’s essay, “Myth Became Fact,” where he admits there were pre-Christian myths of dying and rising savior gods but tries to co-opt them as hopeful yearnings of the human race for the Savior, Jesus, who should one day arrive to fulfill those “coming attractions.”

Jesus comes down from cross in a dreamWhat would it mean for Jesus to sacrifice that in him which was Jesus to that in him which was the Christ? Think of the sequence in Nikos Kazantzakis’s The Last Temptation of Christ (or the Paul Schraeder/Martin Scorsese film version) in which Jesus (dreams that he) is taken down alive from the cross and lives out a full life as a conventional family man—until he snaps out of it and finds himself back on the cross. He has realized that opting for the life of an ordinary man would be to betray his unique destiny. So he traded his prerogative for his dharma. He traded his Jesus identity for his Christ identity. Thus did he become more than a man.

And, if I may pursue this one step more, allow me to suggest that Tillich is here presupposing his crucial distinction between a symbol and that to which it points (symbolizes). The symbol participates in what it points to, or it could not really symbolize it. It could only refer to it, like a crummy footnote. But if we equate the symbol with that which it points to, as Christians do with the Bible when they deem it the infallible Word of God, we thereby commit idolatry. Jesus could have made himself an idol in his own mind. He would have become like the self-deified Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim who executed all who refused to worship him. Or he’d have been like one of the poor souls in insane asylums who think they’re Jesus, like the guys in Milton Rokeach’s study The Three Christs of Ypsilanti. Theologically, this would have been Monophysitism, the heresy that the divine nature had completely swallowed up the human nature of Christ.

In his essay “The Writer on Holiday” Semiologist Roland Barthes discusses a magazine story about a famous author taking a vacation and points out the implicit significance of the magazine doting on the fact that this famous person does many of the same mundane things the rest of us poor mortals do. Why make a big deal if these things are mundane? Because the one doing them in this case is a celebrity, i.e., divine. It’s like Jesus being born in a manger. Wow! We marvel at the divine condescension to share the humble lot of mortals! You see, the mundane details only serve to magnify the greatness of the divine!

“Far from the details of his daily life bringing nearer to me the nature of his inspiration and making it clearer, it is the whole mythical singularity of his condition which the writer emphasizes by such confidences. For I cannot but ascribe to some superhumanity the existence of beings vast enough to wear blue pajamas at the very moment when they manifest themselves as universal conscience.” (Barthes, Mythologies, p. 31)

X-Men bathroom signBut it should work the other way, too. In Annie Hall, Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is growing exasperated with his ditzy date’s gushing over the guru she has dragged him to see: “He’s God! I mean, this man is God!” To this Alvy replies, “There’s God coming outta the men’s room.” Well, stuff like that should constantly remind the one who feels himself bearing the mantle of the archetype that he is still a man, even if more, after all.

Stuttering John, one of Howard Stern’s flunkies, managed to get into a press conference given by the Dalai Lama. His shouted question: “How does it feel to be God?” You see, the Buddhist doctrine holds that he who occupies the position of the Dalai Lama is the earthly manifestation of the great Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, who contains all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in himself. I’d say that’s pretty much God all right. So Stuttering John’s question was not an idle one. But His Holiness was ready for him: “I’m just a Buddhist monk.”  Huh? Was he rejecting the very doctrine of the religion for which he serves as a figurehead? No, you just have to remember what someone in the crowd in Monty Pythons Life of Brian (of Nazareth) yells out: “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!” Exactly.

Are you tempted to imagine you have a destiny, a mission or responsibility to do something which the run of mankind are not expected or expecting to do? I suggest you remember that destiny is not delusion. To keep straight the difference, you might try to keep in mind that you have this treasure in an earthen vessel. But you can become “more than a man,” whether it is a cape or a cross you are to bear.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More Than a Man

  1. Cigarette-Smoking Pontiff says:

    Well, I certainly agree on some things, but not on others. I agree that while many of Jung’s theories may be useful in analyzing spiritual matters, nevertheless, archetypal psychology is still a pretty big claim. Particularly, if you ignore or deny the link between genetics and psychopathology. I find it difficult to believe that one can become a megalomaniac (which implies an underlying narcissistic pathology) via contact with the numinous. So we need to be careful here. In that, there is still a great deal of superstitions in connection with Jungian archetypes. While certain people may have an affinity towards a particular archetype this is likely due to their underlying self organization, which can be attributed to factors such as inheritance, parental upbringing, socialization, etc. Therefore, it would be a mistake to ignore these things.

    What we must understand about Jungian archetypes is that they imply an orientation, an intentionality. I do not deny that such an orientation could be unconscious on the part of the individual; however, this orientation can also be conscious on the part of the individual. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute much more than that to these archetypal forces. For instance, a borderline may come into contact with the magus archetype and think himself to be the next messiah, or perhaps more common in our culture a shaman, the same borderline may later on come into contact with the king archetype and decide to run for president. But the archetypes themselves are not to blame for the underlying borderline behavior or acting out; this is the result of the individual’s underlying self organization, which in turn is a result of various factors such as: inheritance, upbringing, socialization, etc.

    So, while it is true that the archetypes are numinous in their power, contact with that numinosity will not make an ordinarily sane person go crazy, or otherwise turn into a psychopath or become a malignant narcissist. (For that matter, it has been said of modern psychology that we can identify a psychopath by the age of six. Of course, we don’t stigmatize these individuals for obvious ethical reasons.) That is, religiosity itself poses no underlying threat to the structural integrity of the individual’s self organization. That being said, if the individual is acting out in a manner that is socially destructive, the structural integrity of the individual’s self organization has already been compromised. Exactly how or in what way that acting out will occur or manifest itself is determined by the conscious orientation of the individual, that is, the various energies coming off of these archetypes. So, as you can see, an archetypal psychology is a pretty bold claim in terms of our understanding of modern psychology. What we can say of archetypal possession, however, is that if an individual has become possessed of an archetype, as is the case of a malignant narcissist or a borderline, then the integrity of their ego had already been compromised. From this perspective, archetypal possession merely determines whether you will get a Ted Haggard or a Donald Trump.

    So you may ask, what good is Jung’s psychology if it does not describe the way things are in actuality? Well, it is very useful in a number of ways. First, it is the only paradigm that takes the spiritual life of the person into account. This provides many useful insights for the analyst. Secondly, by use of these various structures of experience Jung’s psychology can provide insights into domains of the person’s life that are relevant to a number of different fields, such as: philosophy, theology, sociology, and cultural anthropology. That is, Jung’s model is much more universal, in a sense, and has implications across a wide range of fields, not just depth psychology. (The mysteries of toliet training have not proved all that useful to the social sciences at large.) Thirdly, Jung’s theories do not preclude the use of other theories in conjunction with his. Therefore, it is possible to apply multiple theories (as I have done in the example above) to Jung’s archetypal psychology to glean further insights into the matter. Lastly, and most importantly, Jung’s psychology is a psychology of individuation, and as such it provides us with a sort of “map” of the unconscious by way of its ability to determine an individual’s conscious orientation.

  2. Phyllis.Stein says:

    Reading this I’m reminded of Nietzsche’s subtitle to Ecce Homo: ‘Wie man wird, was man ist’, or in English: ‘How One Becomes What One is’.

    The exhortation to become what you are shows up throughout Nietzsche’s work. One way of saying what Nietzsche means is to set up a contrast with ordinary consciousness. Rather than the uneasy, tentative identification with what you are thinking, feeling, or doing at a given moment, identify instead with your predicament – a colossal predicament – suspended in infinity, spinning a thousand miles an hour on a globe going around a star at 20 miles a second. And this without God, without morals, without absolute truths. To become what one is, one has to identify with one’s predicament which is monstrous, sublime, and above all heroic.

    On the other hand, it seems this, as with all things, is caught within an antinomy. The other German phrase that comes to mind reading this is ‘Wo Es war, soll Ich werden’. It’s Freud’s phrase, but Lacan’s gloss on it forms the other side of the antinomy: where ‘it’ was (my cause), there shall I be. The cause, of course, is total alterity, otherness from oneself. As a body and mind whose whole self-relation takes place ‘in’ time and space, there’s no being as such for the human being, just a loss of being. Two points are defined by their difference in time and space – their relation – and so the relation is constitutive, and yet doesn’t exist anywhere as such. The end result of this is just what we are intuiting more and more in our science-fiction when it comes to artificial intelligence when it first becomes conscious: its first order of business is generally to go mad. Then to commit suicide.

    Two sides then – heroism and horror. “Je est un autre”, or “I is an other” means we don’t even have a ‘self’ we can rely on as we’re spinning on this rock out in the void. We are not only often not what we are, we are radically different than who we think we are, even the opposite. We are ‘other’ to ourselves.

    Heroism and horror – or if you like, Zarathustra and Cthulhu.

Leave a Reply