| Part 1 | Next | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |

"In some ways, Campbell seemed to feel humans were, to a degree, hard-wired with the potential for responding to the way myths called us to the realm of the unconscious. In fact, he borrowed from the work of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen in order to suggest how this might be possible.

"Both of these latter researchers spoke about the notion of 'innate releasing mechanisms'. These hypothetical systems were considered to be capable of generating species-specific behaviors when animals in which this mechanism were operative were presented with a particular stimulus capable of triggering the firing of such an innate releasing mechanism.

"Sometimes the stimulus that served as the triggering device for the activation of the behavior controlled by an innate releasing mechanism was also innate. For instance, baby chickens will display a stereotypical flight/panic response whenever an object that casts a shadow shaped like a hawk is flown over baby chickens, even if the object in question is not actually a hawk but only hawk-like in shape. Yet, if the shape of some other kind of non-predator, such as a pigeon or duck, is flown over the baby chickens, the same kind of flight/panic response is not elicited.

"Apparently, in this particular case, there is nothing being learned through experience which shapes either the triggering stimulus or the character of the behavior being manifested through the firing of the innate releasing mechanism that regulates such behavior. The whole stimulus-release/response package is part of the biological equipment inherited by baby chickens.

"There are other cases, however, in which a special kind of learning process, known as imprinting, occurs. Apparently, this kind of learning can take place only within a critical period of development that seems to vary with the species being considered.

"Yet, if one works within the constraints imposed by this critical period for imprinting, one discovers that one can establish different kinds of stimulus triggering relationships with some of the innate releasing mechanisms operating in a given species. For instance, under normal conditions, certain relatively young birds exhibit what might be called a 'following response' when presented with the stimulus of the mother's presence such that wherever the mother goes, the offspring will follow.

"Nonetheless, if one substitutes a human being for the normal, species-appropriate mother during the critical period in which the imprinting of the following response takes place for that species, then the young birds will follow only that human being. The stimulus of such a human image has been substituted for the stimulus of the species-appropriate mother, and, as a result, it is the human image rather than the normal mother's image, that has been linked up with the neural, innate, releasing mechanism responsible for the following-response during the critical period for imprinting such stimulus information.

"According to Campbell, human beings also have, at least some, innate releasing mechanisms within them. Moreover, humans can undergo an imprinting process in which a certain kind of stimulus can be hooked up with a particular innate releasing mechanism.

"More specifically, the symbols inherent in a given myth are the stimuli that trigger the firing of the innate releasing mechanism within us. These innate releasing mechanisms are the archetypes, and the behavior that these archetypes regulate concern all of the emotions and actions that are appropriate to the journey inward to the unconscious and realization of the self.

"Campbell believes the people who create myth understand the nature of the relationship between the symbols which are implanted in a myth and the character of the underlying archetypes. Therefore, when people encounter the symbols inherent in a myth that has been constructed by people with knowledge of the self and the unconscious, the archetypes within us will automatically release the appropriate sorts of emotions and behavior that are conducive to working toward realizing the unconscious wisdom with which the archetypes are associated, and to which they give expression.

"The archetypes - such as birth, old age, the masculine and feminine, suffering, light and dark, as well as a variety of other themes of development and life - are innate. On the other hand, the symbols in myths that trigger the archetypes capacity to release appropriate kinds of emotion and action can be variable and introduced through experience.

"Presumably, different stages of development constitute so many critical periods in our lives. As such, we become open to the imprinting of certain forms of experience during different stages in which we are sensitized to the problems, challenges and possibilities of these way stations of development.

"The symbols of myths are specifically designed, according to Campbell, to tie in with the learning that takes place during those critical periods involving themes related to archetypal patterns. Thus, when we encounter a myth, the symbols of the myth resonate both with our lived experience as well as the underlying archetypes that are relevant to such experience.

"Part of the problem with Campbell's theoretical framework at this point is that some of his discussion of archetypes is couched in ambiguity. One is never quite sure whether archetypes are inherited or acquired since, from time to time, he appears to speak in terms that allow for both possibilities.

"Yet, if archetypes are acquired anew by each generation, as he sometimes seems to suggest is the case, then one has difficulty understanding how these archetypes are connected to the great wisdom of the unconscious to which archetypes are supposed to give expression and to which they are intended to call us back. If archetypes are acquired anew by each generation, then one wonders why we should feel compelled, as Campbell insists we must, to consider archetype-driven myths as worthy of completely giving ourselves over to and identifying with -mind, heart and soul.

"If archetypes are acquired anew with each passing generation, then a certain amount of confusion is generated. This is because one is unclear as to why one should suppose that myths are completely sufficient unto themselves as the only means of helping a person to obtain self-realization and self-fulfilment.

"In my opinion, Campbell's theoretical framework becomes much more consistent when archetypes remain as givens or constants, and symbols are what can be acquired anew with each passing generation. The task of the creators of myth for any given generation, then, would become one of ensuring that the symbolic seeds planted in these myths are capable of triggering the archetypal innate releasing mechanisms that govern the emotions and actions crucial to an individual's inward journey toward the unconscious."

"Andrea," interjected Ben Blake, "I wonder if I might interrupt you at this point and raise some concerns I have with Campbell's approach to the issue of self-realization. I hope you'll forgive me if I am about to preempt anything that you were intending to discuss."

"By all means, Ben, go ahead," Andrea assured him.

"Well, I've often wondered about the following problem. If things are as automatic as Campbell seems to suppose is the case by his discussion of innate releasing mechanisms, then why aren't more people self-realized and self-fulfilled?

"In other words, supposedly, when we encounter the symbols which have been planted in myths that have been designed specifically by various sages to serve as triggers for the firing of the archetypal innate releasing mechanisms, then this symbolic encounter should set in motion a series of steps ending with the release of the emotions and actions that are necessary for undertaking the journey inward. Yet, despite the presence of these myths and their wide dissemination through various kinds of mass media, many, perhaps most, of the people who come into contact with such symbols don't seem to get swept along by a tide of emotions and actions that culminates in a successful completion of a journey of self-realization and self-fulfilment.

"All of this seems to suggest several things. First, maybe human beings aren't as hardwired as Campbell would have us believe through his use of Tinbergen's and Lorenz' notion of innate releasing mechanism in conjunction with archetypes. Secondly, perhaps the journey inward is not as automatic as Campbell sometimes appears to give the impression this is the case, and there may be many factors of experience, personality and life-circumstances that can interfere with the way, and the extent to which, someone may respond to the symbols inherent in a myth.

"In addition, and following from the foregoing considerations, I feel Campbell is on somewhat shaky and contentious grounds when he attempts to maintain that learning how to properly interpret the symbols of myth through contact with people who are capable of imparting such understanding is sufficient for the process of self-realization and self-fulfilment to occur. For, presumably, Campbell would consider himself to be a person who understands the proper interpretation of myth, and, yet, despite his guidance to students, to readers of his books, and to viewers of the multi-part PBS television series that delineated his perspective in some detail, many of the individuals who have been exposed to his guidance over a significant period of time haven't necessarily become self-realized and self-fulfilled.

"None of what I'm saying is intended to denigrate Joseph Campbell as a teacher or scholar, for he appears to have been quite gifted in both areas.

Nevertheless, one is left wondering about whether or not innate releasing mechanisms actually are involved in any of this; and, whether or not the journey inward is as automatic as Campbell sometimes seems to suppose; and, whether or not having a correct interpretation, along with rational reflection, are sufficient tools for permitting an individual to successfully complete the inward journey?"

"You've raised some interesting points, Ben," acknowledged Andrea, "some of which I was intending to cover and some that are new to me. I don't know if you will think the following relevant to your musings, Ben, and I certainly have no desire to serve as an apologist for him, but Campbell did go on record saying he considered such things as institutionalized religion to be obstacles that encroached on people's ability to be free to pursue and respond to the teachings of myth.

"Furthermore, he advised people to surrender to, and completely identify with, the dynamic of a myth and its potential for leading one to the unconscious and realization of the self. Conceivably, an individual's failure to heed this advice prevented such a person from benefitting by that which myth, and Campbell's interpretation of myth, had to offer."

| Part 1 | Next | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |