Neal J. Pollock 2006-10-12
7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
In this companion volume to Johnson's "He" & "She" books, he analyzes a medieval story (similar to Marie-Louise von Franz & Allan Chinen) in terms of Jungian psychology--but pursuing p. 195: "The task of salvaging love from the swamp of romance." He describes Western misinterpretation & overemphasis on being in love & its projection of the inner human soul (p. 63: "animus is the soul in woman just as anima is the soul in man") onto an external person--leading to later disaster. Interestingly, it closely parallels Trungpa's "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" that I read in parallel. I think Trungpa would agree with Johnson that: p. 32: "Many Western people, caught up in misunderstanding of Eastern religions or philosophy, make an ideal of getting rid of the ego. We need to understand that the ego is absolutely necessary; it has a vital role to play in the drama of evolving consciousness" & Johnson (p. 151) provides an enlightening, extraordinary definition of ego "death." Also, they both address the illusions/delusions of incorrect assumptions/preconceptions & the materialization of spiritual matters. Johnson's concluding chapters (an American Indian legend, a dream, & an analysis contrasting romantic love, human love, & friendship) rounded out his view since earlier chapters seemed a bit over-the-top via overgeneralization, over intellectualization (too much Thinker vs. Feeler), & a religious view of romance & spirituality (vs. Jungian individuation, balance, & integration). I'm uneasy with Johnson's "love the one you're with" (p. 129) philosophy & his praise of Eastern marriage. While he demonstrates how romantic love is egocentric vs. altruistic human love, he deemphasizes this in his story analysis. It seems to me that Tristan was a puer (Peter Pan) archetypal hero--not an adult. Much of what Johnson vilifies as romance could be attributed to narcissism instead--could romantic love merely be an implementation of narcissism? Further, archetypes form complexes by combining with human experience; thus, anima & animus are complexes as well as archetypes. An adult could apply archetypal spiritual love to a real person to form a (human) love complex. Thus, rather than an Eastern contractual marriage or Western falling-in-love, one could follow the Middle Way of human love, balancing one's inner & outer worlds without sacrificing personal affinity. Johnson seems to imply this without explicating it. He performs a most valuable service by exposing idealized romantic falling-in-love & facilitating modern understanding of human love & commitment in a society with a dearth of both.