# Puer Aeternus (The Eternal Child) + the Enneagram



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

@_Animal_ moving this here.

A discussion popped up here (http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...nctual-variants-stackings-21.html#post6814625) regarding the concept of Puer Aeternus, an archetype in Jungian psychology that is best represented by a childish figure that "doesn't want to grow up" (Peter Pan, classically, but Dionysus as well).

Traditionally, the puer aeternus was a mythological figure described in both Greek and Egyptian mythology indicative of youthful growth and resurrection. Jung used this term to describe the psychological archetype of a man that didn't want to be fenced in, tied to responsibility or grow up. Sort of like a person that exists as a perpetual frat boy, bachelor, etc. Dionysus or Hermes are often used as examples of this archetype, due to their youthful exuberance, joviality, and sometimes trickster-like qualities (in contrast to, say, Cronos or Apollo).

The female counterpart to the puer aeternus is puella aeternus, but for all practical purposes, I will just refer to it as puer aeternus sans gender identification. These archetypes can also be referred to as puer animus for males and puella anima for females ( jungian therapy jungian therapist: Puer aeternus 

^ @_Veggie_ can probably elaborate on anima/animus better than I can.







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now for the main course. Inviting @_Cosmic Orgasm_ @_mimesis_ @_Animal_ @_Veggie_ and @_mushr00m_ for dinner. sidenote: yes, I _*would *_like a mimetic orgasm with my animals, veggies and mushrooms. That would be a weird dinner. Automatically thinks of a Seinfeld episode.

The enneagram, in regards to puer aeternus, most classically and archetypally corresponds to type 7, as Animal and Cosmic pointed out. The narcissistic qualities of the 7, its tendency to be self-centered and, in general, its capacity to think highly of itself (even for the "humble" Soc 7 subtype described by Naranjo), lends it a disposition that seem to describe the puer aeternus quite well. I believe the puer aeternus, at least classically, also applies quite strongly to the Sp 2 subtype Naranjo described as well.

However, I was thinking about the puer aeternus in more general terms. If we consider the concept in its purest form, it refers to the eternal boy (in the literal sense) and even more generally, the _*eternal child*_.

And if we think back to childhood, perhaps the picture is more complex than a "immature" person. If I think back, there were those that were the "good children" always following the rules, perhaps those that would go "I'm telling on you!", then those that would always get in trouble. There were those who were manipulative, those that gossiped, and those that were cruel bullies. Then there were those that simply didn't want to be a part of the drama and minded their own business. 

Obviously, people mature at different rates.

However, I believe that these childhood archetypes I have just described represent a certain... inflexibility, on the part of the individual. In Harry Potter, for instance, we can think of Hermione Granger (possibly a 3, I haven't given it much thought). In the beginning, she's an excessive stickler for the rules, someone whose chief concern is grades and making good impressions, and, if I may put it so crudely, probably has a stick up her ass. Yet, throughout the series, her character's growth, aided by her friendship with Ron and Harry, involves all kinds of mischief and in her case, realizing that rules, authority and prestige are not everything.

It is no mistake *SPOILER* that in Harry Potter, JK Rowling chooses *not *to have Ron, Hermione or Harry complete their final year. The point being, school is not everything and there are things that are far more important than earning a grade. In this regard, Hermione's earlier self, as the stickler who holds excessive concern for the rules, is as much an indicator of childish thinking as the classic archetype of puer aeternus characterized by Hermes or Dionysus. 

*Thus, perhaps all enneagram types are indicative of a certain childish disposition, overidentification with a particular ego-distortion and perhaps most importantly, an inflexibility and lack of finesse*. Life is very complex, and as useful as the 9's strategy of "why bother?" indolence can be, there are times to wage war, so to speak. Similarly, there is a time and a place for the 1's principles, but perhaps there is a time to relax and let go.

One of the first resources I ever saw on the enneagram was the "lost childhood messages." Lost and Unconscious Childhood Messages

Unconscious Childhood Messages
Type One: It's not ok to make mistakes.
Type Two: It's not ok to have your own needs.
Type Three: It's not ok to have your own feelings and identity.
Type Four: It's not ok to be too functional or too happy.
Type Five: It's not ok to be comfortable in the world.
Type Six: It's not ok to trust yourself.
Type Seven: It's not ok to depend on anyone for anything.
Type Eight: It's not ok to be vulnerable or to trust anyone.
Type Nine: It's not ok to assert yourself.


And then there are the Lost Childhood Messages for each type, that we do not hear as children, that Riso thinks becomes the central issue in our lives. We want to hear our message more than anything else.


Lost Childhood Messages
Type One: You are good.
Type Two: You are wanted.
Type Three: You are loved for yourself.
Type Four: You are seen for who you are.
Type Five: Your needs are not a problem.
Type Six: You are safe.
Type Seven: You will be taken care of.
Type Eight: You will not be betrayed.
Type Nine: Your presence matters.


^RE: these messages, I don't agree with some of Riso's wording here and it's definitely an oversimplification of type. BUT, I think these are useful in describing, perhaps, the childish archetypes within each enneagram type compulsion. The overidentification and latching onto a particular ego-distortion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

*Questions *(no need to answer or follow this format, but I know some people like these sorts of things):



In what ways do you relate to the puer aeternus (i.e., "I don't want to grow up," "don't fence me in," etc.)? 
How does this relate to your enneagram type? Or any particular enneagram compulsion you have noticed either with friends, acquaintances, enemies, frenemies, etc.? 
What role does instinctual variant/stacking play? 
What do you consider to be "childish?" 
What is maturity, for you?
Are you wiser than you were earlier in life? In what ways? Does wisdom always grow with age?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> In this regard, Hermione's earlier self, as the stickler who holds excessive concern for the rules, is as much an indicator of childish thinking as the classic archetype of puer aeternus characterized by Hermes or Dionysus.


YES. Apollo can be just as much a puer aeternus character as Dionysus. Sometimes that frat boy, Van Wilder energy is needed and even enlightened.






(Puella Aeternus for females eh? It's pretty, I like it. Okay, on to your questions...lol - coming up).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@hal0hal0 - So, those questions. (Btw, in the honor of our I'm gonna say whatever the hell comes to mind discussions...I just had to pause "You Got Mail" and refrain from throwing my remote through the television. So there is a SECOND Meg Ryan "the talk" scene where she's breaking up with her guy and they're both just like "Hyuck, hyuck - you too? Well then (HAHA!) be on your way then goofster - go after ol' Tom Hanks (I'ma go after Tom Hanks!" - Sleepless in Seattle?) ... :angry

Um, let's see. All of the core seven "you need to depend on yourself" stuff - dude...am I afraid of being _resentful_ of a child? Is this where the tokophobia I've mentioned is coming from? It's funny, because I'm kind of a spoiled brat by probably many people's definitions - I don't even know where this whole crisis is coming from - maybe it's something much more existential and Gatsby-ish? 

What do I define as maturity and wisdom? I have no f'ing clue - I think these questions are behind our (almost year long now, lol) convo on the Personal Legends thread. I'm beginning to think it's just a refusal to leave that comfort zone - but then...maybe not too. If someone were extremely self-aware within that place and willing to fight for, rationalize and protect it - I see that as mature too. There are plenty who drift and seek new experience with no purpose or opinion.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

*Answers *



*In what ways do you relate to the puer aeternus (i.e., "I don't want to grow up," "don't fence me in," etc.)?*
The article is totally about me. I always consider it is a shadow nickname. 
Through my childhood people told me that I should grow up, be more serious, accept human nature, etc. I don't like people telling me what to do. My first reaction is opposition. I show they are wrong by my own example. Because I am smarter, stronger, can be responsible and yet remain childish as much as I want. 



*How does this relate to your enneagram type? Or any particular enneagram compulsion you have noticed either with friends, acquaintances, enemies, frenemies, etc.?*
8-7-7-8 chemistry, I surmise. I am not sure it will work for other people with this E-types. It is a mix of 8ish wanting to be innocent/childish and 7ish capacity to remain one. I have 4 in my tritype. It just adds some meaning and romanticism to the quest.
Haven't noticed the same in anyone of my acquaintances. Everyone want to grow up, being mature, tralala, etc. 
I see at as a betrayal of myself.



*What role does instinctual variant/stacking play?*
I have no idea. It does not. Perhaps, so will be more inclined to go with societies norms. Sx and Sp will be more likely to be eternal child. sx/so will tell people that it is a great thing



*What do you consider to be "childish?"*
Be yourself and do not pretend/follow the stupid rules of conduct



*What is maturity, for you?*
I am not sure I like the word due to reasons I indicated. But lets see it as a way of self-development. It would be becoming an invincible, god-like creature that decides the fate of the galaxy. 



*Are you wiser than you were earlier in life? In what ways? Does wisdom always grow with age?*
It grows with amount of books you consume. It does not matter how many centuries you procrastinated on this planet if you did not read/did not use your thing to create/imagine.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Coincidentally, I was thinking about the soul child concept yesterday and I figured it's probably related to the puer aeterna (I'll use plural to include both puer and puella), in that being robbed of the quality of the soul child might lead to the development of one's enneagram core. After the eternal child there's the animae (I'll use plural again for simplification), which would be the final step in order to actualize self. I am not sure how animae would fit into enneagram context but I think it would relate to the holy idea in some way, to fully integrate ego in a healthy way.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@hal0hal0

I'm going to respond regardless of enneagram or Jung.

Not wanting to grow up, or being childish is a way to look at it. It depends much on the way you compare it. 

I see "the child" as openminded, and this changes when he grows up, becoming more narrow minded through adolescence, disappointed or frustrated, seeing idealism as naive, and believe their cynicism to be realistic. Some of these people I've met I feel have already grown old (and grumpy) before their 30s. 

On the other hand there are old people who seem to have eternal youth. Some of them don't even stop working, or stop learning (or being curious enough to learn or wonder). And what they all seem to have in common is that they still embrace their inner child. Those people have been an example to me. So for me it's not so much a question of growing up, but how you want to grow old. When I was 18 or so, I didn't even want to get old to begin with, and imagined I would probably have ended my life, or destroyed it in any other way by the time I was 40, which seemed very old to me back then. I'm 42 now, but look 10 years younger, and um...still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. :tongue:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@hal0hal0 - I've been musing again this morning, and I think last night my thesis was that immaturity is Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks (partnering as a team) movies  (And, in my case personally - maybe fear of resentment?) It's like when we were talking about sophistication and complexity (really, you could argue that simplification can be even _more_ complex though because it's often taken more into account first to reach a finite conclusion - like how Einstein said that if you can't explain something simply you don't understand it well enough) - ugh, those love stories are like an _over_-simplification though...almost offensive imo. No attachment, no pain, no real confliction.

Okay...Peter Pan. It's like that quote I posted elsewhere:










I didn't love that hard work video when you threw it on the legends thread, and I have even more thoughts on it now  I shall (in 7 style as I'm sure you would declare) defend the maturity of Peter Pan and denounce some of the narcissistic accusations towards the 7 (self-centered doesn't have to mean that you don't care about others - it's more just exactly that -- self centering. That whole put on your mask first thing). Okay, so the fact that Peter Pan is always looking for his shadow and attempting to integrate it I think is symbolic of the process of individuation. It's that ebb and flow of the impermanence of lost and found. The shunning of the idyllic "golden roof" - settling into not settling...which, given how life works is arguably the ultimate settling from an enlightened standpoint. When video dude says that he built a rich inner fantasy life to be ok with discomfort - what's wrong with that? 

The whole Puer Aeternus as a neurosis thing is something I don't totally agree with Jung on (although some associated qualities - i.e. waiting for someone else to fix your problems or for your ship to sail in - I would agree are unhealthy). I think that's probably a good thing, as following and adopting his model to a T would really be introjection...which ironically would halt the individuation process towards autonomy. The solution to curing neuroses being simply "work" flies in the face of the shadow theory though (that these events leading towards self discovery are usually more subconsciously driven and unexpected). Without the open mind often sparked by the child-like dreamer we would limit our capacity for revelation (both rational and irrational - which I think have to work together a bit - that sort of Ne-ish throwing theories and ideas against the wall to see what sticks brainstorming process).

I think I'm coming to the determination that I view immaturity...ultimately...as a lack of awareness - both inner and outer. Acknowledgement, as well (i.e. how transcendence without the acknowledgement of the existence of what one is transcending can devolve into chaos lacking necessary cornerstones). This is where Peter Pan, as he's often portrayed, would come up short I suppose. I found this a while ago and thought it was interesting:


* *















The argument is that Peter Pan views everything as a game and doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Welllll, right and wrong are subjective and debatable - but I believe that it's important to acknowledge the necessity of morality...even in it's subjectivity. Otherwise you fall into that looking glass trap of being full of oneself and close your mind off to learning from (or at least acknowledging) others and the process of cause and effect.

Also, since you opened the floor with some Harry Potter references...you know I must expand  I was thinking about how Harry broke the glass (mirror?) in the first book to free the snake at the zoo. If as a 7 I more self center, and if as a 4 (heart-fix) I would feel that compulsion to connect with the outer (even if I were doing so in an envious counterproductive way) - I can see why I love that imagery (plus I have that sx desire for merge).










It breaks my brain though at the same time, as we've discussed, haha, because it can become a big confusing mush of who's who, what's yours, what's mine? At the same time though - that saves you from that "real life" vs "fantasy" trap -- what if the provincial life is more fantastical than one might realize? What if that acceptance opens windows and doors in the _here and now_? (It's cool that it was a snake that was freed as well, since the R-complex is tied to the unconscious and therefore perhaps - the collective unconscious?) Without an awareness of establishment that can become a slippery slope to insanity, lol...but with it's presence madness becomes a bit of an art form. Keeping energy levels optimal within that I think is key as well - so I also don't agree with the whole work must be hard or uncomfortable idea. It's like proposing that we blow out the speakers to make the music that we're listening to somehow "count" (although that can be cathartic at times I guess if you're in need of that intense place).

Speaking of which - awesome depiction of the 7 or what? The goat as a totem can be seen as gluttonous, but due to that, has the ability to be highly selective and fine-tuned at times too, with a rich plethora of personal experience to draw from:










Okay...now for pure conjecture, not grounded in enneagram...so, derail warning 

I was thinking more about the Harry Potter houses, the corresponding elements, the Tim Leary circuits of consciousness I had tied them to, and Nietzsche's ideas on Apollo and Dionysus as the creator and the creation, respectively. 

Gryffindor - I am - Fire - Dionysus 
Hufflepuff - I feel - Earth - Dionysus
Ravenclaw - I think - Air - Apollo
Slytherin - I connect - Water - Apollo

(I see the fire and earth aspects as more self-contained while air and water are more expansive)

In that, I would see Gryffindor tied more to the idea of self-identification with the archetype, and Hufflepuff as grounded in the concepts of Eros or Agape. Ravenclaw as a bit more grounded in separation - the particle (dust in the wind) - and Slytherin as the wave due to the water aspect -- so the second two are the broader implications of the first. You could play endlessly with "awakenings" (assuming we have inherent preferences) within that. Resurrection, inner vs. outer, self preservation vs. self sacrifice, expansion vs. contraction. The idea that we are either "child" or "adult" stunts that process a bit - as it implies final destination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

A thought just struck me, but that the animae would perhaps be best represented as the hidden connection that exists for each type e.g. between 8 and 4 or 2 and 7. It would thus not be sufficient to simply integrate the aspects of the types associated with the connection lines, but one may also need to integrate type expressed in the hidden connection in order to "complete" integration and reach full self-actualization. It would otherwise be simple to think that the integration line would be the same as animae, but if that spot is already possessed by the eternal child then that's not possible. I also think the hidden connection line makes more sense anyway in that they are the types that are in a sense, exactly the same but yet so fundamentally different.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

mimesis said:


> On the other hand there are old people who seem to have eternal youth. Some of them don't even stop working, or stop learning (or being curious enough to learn or wonder). And what they all seem to have in common is that they still embrace their inner child. Those people have been an example to me. So for me it's not so much a question of growing up, but how you want to grow old. When I was 18 or so, I didn't even want to get old to begin with, and imagined I would probably have ended my life, or destroyed it in any other way by the time I was 40, which seemed very old to me back then. I'm 42 now, but look 10 years younger, and um...still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. :tongue:


In honor of your Atari avatar, I will quote a friend of mine when we were talking about video games:

_*"People often wonder whether you stop playing video games when you get older. Well, I think you get old when you stop playing video games."*_

So basically, never stop playing video games :tongue:. Well, even that's a bit of an oversimplification, because what happens when the game becomes a chore? Where the joie de vivre magic of the game loses its fire? Strangely, I've had that happen where pleasurable activities become an obligation (i.e., when I've forced myself to finish a book, beat a game, etc.) and vice versa—work for some people becomes a sort of amusing challenge for me. 

I think it comes down to what feels right and what sort of mood I'm in. I'm easily amused in the sense that I can find virtually anything interesting, but admittedly, I can be temperamental about it—there are times where it just doesn't feel right. I'd actually say most of it is whether or not it feels like an obligation (i.e., something I "should" be doing).

I don't know what I want to be when (or if) I grow up, either. I can't imagine a life where I stopped learning or exploring new territory; perhaps that is death.



Veggie said:


> I think I'm coming to the determination that I view immaturity...ultimately...as a lack of awareness - both inner and outer. Acknowledgement, as well (i.e. how transcendence without the acknowledgement of the existence of what one is transcending can devolve into chaos lacking necessary cornerstones). This is where Peter Pan, as he's often portrayed, would come up short I suppose. I found this a while ago and thought it was interesting:


Haha, yeah, I've had issues with zefrank's videos, too. I think a lot of it is semantics (and possibly JCF differences), but I think his videos are useful more as starting points or seeds for discussion rather than "instruction manuals for life." For instance, you said that work doesn't need to be hard or uncomfortable, but what makes something difficult or uncomfortable? If you've grown accustomed to change, stepping outside of your comfort zone, etc., then perhaps movement itself becomes a sort of stasis—Don Juanism, so to speak. In this regard, maybe adventure then exists on the home front. Who can say? Only the individual, I think.

As you know from our many discussions, I think it comes down to what _*feels *_right (in other words, Feelers hold the keys to the kingdom, bwahaha ).

And that feel has a flow to it, I think, which can't entirely be "explained in words" so to speak. So I think maturity/immaturity comes down, not quite to awareness, but perhaps inner flow and movement. I remember way back (yes, legends' One Year Anniversary is coming up, huh?), you were talking about creating that movement and flow—dancing being one manifestation of this. Our old friend Andy Goldsworthy:






I remember back on like, page 3 of legends I brought up Shiva's dance, the Nataraja, as a depiction of the universe. The image has stuck with me in part because instead of viewing existence as physical matter, it views it as the _*interaction*_ between matter (the body) and energy (the dance). Moreover, theoretical physics deals with the unification of the various forces (EM, gravitational, strong forces, weak force) to find an even more universal connection. So there is certainly crossover between science and the arts; Thinking and Feeling, too.

Indeed, the very basis of science is founded upon the line between doubt and certainty (which is why I think if we were to label the 9 types [not that I really agree with that practice!), 6 probably deserves the title of "scientist" even more so than, say, 5).










And, I think what feels right is ultimately unnameable or at least, can never be fully dissected of all its mystery. Think of Jack and the Beanstalk and the goose that laid the golden egg—the greedy townsfolk butchered the goose to discover its secrets and found it was no different, in terms of anatomy, from any other goose. What makes a person homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, etc.? We can rationalize it to a limited extent, but there comes a point where words fail—the feeling of a particular value simply is what it is. What is the difference between a great dancer and a _*phenomenal *_one, for instance? We can throw around words like "finesse" but art in particular is the domain of feeling. Our tastes are formed by feeling (supported by T-rationalizations, of course), so there is ultimately a certain kind of mystery to them.

This is why Joseph Campbell talked about how artists and poets were considered the "seers of modern times" because they were dealing in things that defied the rational explanation. The gaps between the words, so to speak.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> If you've grown accustomed to change, stepping outside of your comfort zone, etc., then perhaps movement itself becomes a sort of stasis—Don Juanism, so to speak. In this regard, maybe adventure then exists on the home front. Who can say? Only the individual, I think.


I totally agree that adventure can exist on the home front - but there can still be movement even within domestication.



hal0hal0 said:


> As you know from our many discussions, I think it comes down to what _*feels *_right (in other words, Feelers hold the keys to the kingdom, bwahaha ).
> 
> And that feel has a flow to it, I think, which can't entirely be "explained in words" so to speak. So I think maturity/immaturity comes down, not quite to awareness, but perhaps inner flow and movement.


Ah, okay, see this is where the awareness bit does come in for me though. A lot can feel right. I think I said something somewhere once about how feeling without a certain degree of heightened consciousness becomes a trance. Neverland then isn't so much a land of adventure as it is a narcotic...an opiate Wonderland.










Speaking of...this is almost a comic representation of my fear of putting down deep roots somewhere (probably both a 7 and 4 thing). In "Once Upon a Time In Wonderland" this season they have Alice enter the "dark forest" at one point - which actually turns out to be this intoxicating utopia - only, the people are losing their drive, ambition, memories and sense of self and _literally_ turning into trees, haha.












There's an Odysseus on Calypso's Island sort of vibe too. Sometimes I think it's best just to say what the hell and go with the flow of these places, yea...because that's life and stuff and not everything is ideal or perfect or what it seems and blah blah. The more you surround yourself with those who value a higher level of cognizance (and demand it of yourself) the less likely these places spell entrapment though. This is why I absolutely do not believe in putting down roots just for the sake of putting down roots (and dislike this aversion being seen as a negative trait of the puer aeternus...tangent - maybe it was semantics with that video, yes - the whole idea of "curing" the eternal child instead of curing what's _unhealthy_ about the eternal child doesn't jive with me...it's like throwing water in a raging fireplace and then leaving it barren and cold as opposed to just starting a more controlled fire) and liked your "find the others" thoughts so much 


* *















^The last picture in that comic strip is a cute depiction of taking the journey with others - however that manifests and whatever shape it takes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Ah, okay, see this is where the awareness bit does come in for me though. A lot can feel right. I think I said something somewhere once about how feeling without a certain degree of heightened consciousness becomes a trance. Neverland then isn't so much a land of adventure as it is a narcotic...an opiate Wonderland.


True. However I tend to see narcotization as giving in to what feels _good_, which isn't necessarily the same as what feels right, for me (and yes, I know the "right" feeling is such a loaded term). I think following what feels right also involves a bit of detachment, a measure of objectivity and self-observation, the latter of which I've found much more difficult than I'd like to admit. I used to think I was good at "knowing myself" but I've kinda discovered the hard way that I have an enormous capacity for self-deception.

I've been thinking about McLuhan and he wasn't really talking about technology. He was talking about people. This is why he uses the term "self-amputation" in the sense that giving ourselves over to a particular experience necessarily suppresses other aspects (similar to JCF and shadow functions). Thus, narcotization, to McLuhan, is a necessary mechanism for self-preservation. 

I think technology is incidental to McLuhan's writings, because he was talking about the extensions _*of man*_, not simply the extensions in and of themselves. Thus, when he refers to the "narcissistic trance," which is that overidentification with technology bestows (i.e., the drone-like "Facebook scroll"), he's not saying that technology itself is the demon, but our interaction with it is—the enemy, so to speak, is within.

When are we genuine and when are we going through the motions? When are we self-aware and when do we think we're self-aware?



Veggie said:


> Speaking of...this is almost a comic representation of my fear of putting down deep roots somewhere (probably both a 7 and 4 thing). In "Once Upon a Time In Wonderland" this season they have Alice enter the "dark forest" at one point - which actually turns out to be this intoxicating utopia - only, the people are losing their drive, ambition, memories and sense of self and _literally_ turning into trees, haha.


Yes, you see the same thing in Lord of the Rings with the Ents. Treebeard looks upon the other Ents with disdain, since many of them are regressing (as he sees it) into regular trees by becoming less and less mobile. Freezing themselves, so to speak. I think Tolkien had this weird love-hate with trees and forests, to the point that they were almost demonized, but also like an angel (remember in LOTR:TFOTR where Galadriel is tempted by the Ring? 

Part of that is... the tree is simultaneously representative of growth AND stability. For one, it's rooted in one place so it's "stuck" but is it really? It continues to grow and flex with the seasons. Moreover, the forest itself is a place to get lost. Perhaps that loss IS stasis (i.e., existential death), but as we've said before, maybe you need to get lost before you can find yourself once more.

But, I dunno, trees are pretty fucking awesome if you take the time to look at them:











Veggie said:


> There's an Odysseus on Calypso's Island sort of vibe too. Sometimes I think it's best just to say what the hell and go with the flow of these places, yea...because that's life and stuff and not everything is ideal or perfect or what it seems and blah blah. The more you surround yourself with those who value a higher level of cognizance (and demand it of yourself) the less likely these places spell entrapment though. This is why I absolutely do not believe in putting down roots just for the sake of putting down roots (and dislike this aversion being seen as a negative trait of the puer aeternus...tangent - maybe it was semantics with that video, yes - the whole idea of "curing" the eternal child instead of curing what's _unhealthy_ about the eternal child doesn't jive with me...it's like throwing water in a raging fireplace and then leaving it barren and cold as opposed to just starting a more controlled fire) and liked your "find the others" thoughts so much z


I was totally about to post the Odyssey and Circe when I saw those videos, but in the very next paragraph you address this. Lemme guess... everybody has read the Odyssey in high school; maybe those teachers were trying to say something?

Reminds me of that Dr. Who scene:





The impulse to jump isn't something that should be extinguished, like you said, maybe just nurtured in a well-tended hearth—allowing it to blaze when needed, but not consume you. I need to talk more about Dr. Who and Torchwood (in the process of watching this now). I will save that for legends because it delves into even more of hal0hal0's ridiculous celebrity/TV star crush territory .

But yeah, extinguishing the spark (or really, I see it more like a pilot light) is like this:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> YES. Apollo can be just as much a puer aeternus character as Dionysus.


Aside from the character of Dionysos, it's just as much interesting to look at the story of his mother Semele, who was a mortal FWB of Zeus. 



Semele said:


> Zeus' wife, Hera, a goddess jealous of usurpers, discovered his affair with Semele when she later became pregnant. Appearing as an old crone, Hera befriended Semele, who confided in her that her lover was actually Zeus. Hera pretended not to believe her, and planted seeds of doubt in Semele's mind. Curious, Semele asked Zeus to grant her a boon. Zeus, eager to please his beloved, promised on the River Styx to grant her anything she wanted. She then demanded that Zeus reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his divinity. Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he was forced by his oath to comply. Zeus tried to spare her by showing her the smallest of his bolts and the sparsest thunderstorm clouds he could find. Mortals, however, cannot look upon Zeus without incinerating, and she perished, consumed in lightning-ignited flame.
> Zeus rescued the fetal Dionysus, however, by sewing him into his thigh (whence the epithet Eiraphiotes, "insewn", of the Homeric Hymn). A few months later, Dionysus was born. This leads to his being called "the twice-born"


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> In honor of your Atari avatar, I will quote a friend of mine when we were talking about video games:
> 
> _*"People often wonder whether you stop playing video games when you get older. Well, I think you get old when you stop playing video games."*_
> 
> So basically, never stop playing video games :tongue:.


Easy for you to say (Sp). It's way too addictive for me. :tongue:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> True. However I tend to see narcotization as giving in to what feels _good_, which isn't necessarily the same as what feels right, for me (and yes, I know the "right" feeling is such a loaded term). I think following what feels right also involves a bit of detachment, a measure of objectivity and self-observation, the latter of which I've found much more difficult than I'd like to admit. I used to think I was good at "knowing myself" but I've kinda discovered the hard way that I have an enormous capacity for self-deception.


I self-deceive, of course, too - but I think I'm more often deceived by others or situations. I kind of have this perpetually skeptical "hmm, what's _really_ going on here?" voice in my head now that cuts off the feels a bit. Learning to trust right vs. good has been a highly idiosyncratic process for me.



hal0hal0 said:


> Part of that is... the tree is simultaneously representative of growth AND stability. For one, it's rooted in one place so it's "stuck" but is it really? It continues to grow and flex with the seasons. Moreover, the forest itself is a place to get lost. Perhaps that loss IS stasis (i.e., existential death), but as we've said before, maybe you need to get lost before you can find yourself once more.


Yea, I liked the literal depiction of the trees because then you can flip it back to the metaphorical. Rooting isn't just a physical action - it can be a mindset or perspective too (even if you're on the move). In the physical sense though, I think there is importance in the trees that you're surrounded by as the forest. What happens when others are constantly projecting their shadow? In the forest, a tree without the proper sunlight will often die (or grow all twisted or gnarly or something )

Uprooting from those places - mental, physical, spiritual, emotional - that are no longer serving us often requires a bit of that jovial, optimistic, chaotic energy (OR...what if?) - so even if Peter Pan is lying dormant...don't kill him off  ...(EVEN if he's a narcissistic 7 who doesn't share his fries  )













mimesis said:


> She then demanded that Zeus reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his divinity. Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he was forced by his oath to comply. Zeus tried to spare her by showing her the smallest of his bolts and the sparsest thunderstorm clouds he could find. Mortals, however, cannot look upon Zeus without incinerating, and she perished, consumed in lightning-ignited flame.


It's interesting that the need for proof was her downfall. Girl stopped trusting the feels. It's all a convoluted mess, lol.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> It's interesting that the need for proof was her downfall. Girl stopped trusting the feels. It's all a convoluted mess, lol.
> View attachment 131001


Must have been one hell of an orgasm though. In terms of power surge, I mean.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Must have been one hell of an orgasm though.


Indeed


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Aside from the character of Dionysos, it's just as much interesting to look at the story of his mother Semele, who was a mortal FWB of Zeus.


Just how _*many *_FWBs did Zeus actually have? The whole of Athens, perhaps? (even the dudes?)



mimesis said:


> Must have been one hell of an orgasm though. In terms of power surge, I mean.


And remember, he only showed her the _smallest _of his thunderbolts.











Veggie said:


> I self-deceive, of course, too - but I think I'm more often deceived by others or situations. I kind of have this perpetually skeptical "hmm, what's _really_ going on here?" voice in my head now that cuts off the feels a bit. Learning to trust right vs. good has been a highly idiosyncratic process for me.


I _would _be deceived by others if I let them in at all in the first place; it's difficult to be betrayed if there are no others to begin with LOL. That's partly why I'm so avoidant, though, is because drama is so complicated. Bleh, is that the Sp thing?





I swear that song is like my freaking theme song or something.

* *





A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

*I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.*
I am a rock,
I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.​




The thing is... I definitely overdo the Sp instinct. The fear (or more accurately revulsion) of making contact is there, but I've discovered that taking the plunge and saying something when the feeling is there has often been more beneficial to me than simply continuing to hide in my mental Pillow Fort (it's a pretty fucking awesome fort, though). A lot of it has been having more faith and valuing myself rather than automatically setting myself up for failure. There are still areas that I'm horribly deficient in though. 

^That is where I think puer aeternus can manifest in Sp-instinct. Do I really want to spend the rest of my life hiding under a rock?

I still keep parts of myself locked away in a vault; to this day I still feel like I don't deserve them. This is where I think breaking out of one's comfort zone is helpful, though. 





SPOILER but you mentioned sympathy for Lily in Girl, Interrupted. I don't see anything wrong with that, per se. If you identify with someone, you identify; that's the feeling, I think. I've identified with Humbert Humbert of Lolita, in part because there is a covetousness aspect to the way he idolizes the love of his life. That book is not about pedophilia; it's about dreaming and the failure of idealisations. Similarly, in Habla Con Ella, it is the necrophiliac loser (well, not necrophilia, but falling in love with a comatose woman and impregnating her) that speaks the most profound and affecting line in the movie:

Habla con ella.

Pedro Almodovar is the master of the melodrama. He identifies with those that are cast out by society (murderers, transsexuals, whores, necrophiles, losers, etc.). Yet as far as he takes it, the characters never lose that spark of humanity and charm. Volver is still my favorite because of the neo-noir aspects.






Anyways, have I told you my favorite version of the story between Artemis and Orion? I can't remember.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> Just how _*many *_FWBs did Zeus actually have? The whole of Athens, perhaps? (even the dudes?)














hal0hal0 said:


> Anyways, have I told you my favorite version of the story between Artemis and Orion? I can't remember.


You have not  Gahhhh, I'm really supposed to be packing right now. I might take a while to respond if you share, lol.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> You have not  Gahhhh, I'm really supposed to be packing right now. I might take a while to respond if you share, lol.


Artemis and Orion grew to be friends, as both were hunters. Regardless of whether they were friends, companions or even, as some interpretations suggest, lovers, they above all shared a kinship and a bond. Apollo was displeased with this relationship, frowning upon the idea of a goddess being involved with a mortal. In essence, Apollo, through deception, tricked Artemis into shooting her love down. When Artemis discovered the truth, stricken with guilt and grief, she carried Orion's body into the aether, to forever grace the night sky.

Betrayal has been one of the hallmarks of key stories throughout history. Christ being abandoned by his disciples and the betrayal of Judas, for one. My favorite is probably between Thomas Becket and King Henry II which, as you know, forms the backdrop for the Canterbury pilgrimage and for Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Caesar and Brutus, for another. Hamlet and Claudius.

What strikes me as particularly tragic with regards to the Artemis and Orion tale is that he is killed at a distance. Artemis shoots him from afar (just like a drone operator killing an entire village with the push of a button from his cozy desk). He goes out with a whimper, squashed like a bug—it is the great irony that befalls many a greek hero (i.e., the Achilles heel). The killing is, in essence, divorced of passion and instead, overcome by indifference.

It's a sad tale, but what I like is that it runs counter to the glory days that often take center stage in mythology—the Herculean trials, Bellerophon, or Perseus and the slaying of Medusa, to name a few. It's easy to forget that Theseus' life was filled with grief even after his triumphs in the Labyrinth, for instance.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Indeed


Can't believe we're back at Meg Ryan again


----------

