THE TERRIBLE LOVE OF WAR
Pacifica Graduate Institute
2-day Seminar: November 8 & 9, 2002
Held in Santa Barbara, CA at the historic, beachfront Radisson Hotel
Rough-Draft Conference Notes & Comments
by Kathleen Jenks, Ph.D.
(Written 19 November 2002 - 13 December 2002; resumed & completed 6 November 2006)
Rushing to the Glory of War
Courtesy of Russian Sunbirds
FYI: I arrived at this conference late on the first day due to traffic caused by our first heavy downpour of the season. Thus, I didn't learn until later that James Hillman is working on a book about the conference's topic: "Terrible Love of War." Because of this, his lectures weren't going to be taped because they were a work-in-progress -- i.e., Hillman wanted the freedom to share his current views with his audience without being locked into their content prematurely. Respecting that, I nevertheless offer these rough notes from that conference. Any errors in interpreting Hillman's perspective are my own. Further, my personal comments will generally not reflect Hillman's own viewpoints.
Notes from Friday, 11/8/02, 2pm - 9pm: Hillman was speaking about the Civil War and Gettysburg. He commented that the earth, after that horrendous battle, had been "made sacred by the devastation."
No, I thought to myself, earth is sacred in and of herself, as indigenous peoples know so well. Only in the nature-deprived West could we possibly think that thousands of tragic, untimely deaths could make earth sacred! It seemed a perverse statement to me. A site of profound tragedy should not be defined as "sacred." The violence of war should not be deemed "holy." But then, in fairness, the conference's focus was on "The Terrible Love of War" so perhaps such displaced sacrality is part of the terror.
JH also commented that the turning points of civilization are marked by war. Well, yes, I thought, some certainly are -- but major turning points are also marked by inventions and new discoveries in many fields. Were it not so, I doubt we could have survived as a species.
On Beauty and/or Aphrodite: he points out that her marriage to the lame smith, Hephaestus, reveals that she's comfortable with those who are "ugly" and marginalized [of course, she went out of her way to ignore the poor smith when she chose more comely lovers, so I'm not sure how valid Hillman's insight is in this regard]. His implication is that she doesn't need the "beautiful people" around her. She can take people as they are. When she is allied with war (Ares), this indicates that violence in war has to be orderly and has to go by the book lest it run amuck and explode into pure rage. Rigid rules are crucial. "Going by the book" turns war into ritual -- without such constraints, there's a disaster. The "martial" (warlike) aspect of Venus/Aphrodite is considered terrifying -- i.e., "sublime."
Hillman re-tells the myth of Aphrodite's attraction to the god of war, Ares. Hephaestus finds out and, artist that he is, he crafts a fine revenge by fashioning a web of spun gold [FYI: the Black Sea region connected with Hephaestus is famous for its stunning goldwork]. This web falls down around the bed of the goddess of love and the god of war, entrapping them. All the gods gather around, laughing at their plight. Finally Hermes, seeking some resolution, steps forward, laughing, saying that he himself would willingly be trapped under that net if Aphrodite were his prize -- and he wouldn't mind at all if all the gods watched their mating. This caused great hilarity among the deities. [Unclear to me why sexuality & voyeurism should be considered so humorous, but then it's a patriarchal tale.]
Neptune/Poseidon, a more serious sort, stepped forward and gave Hephaestus the bride-price for Aphrodite, thereby resolving the awkward situation and saving face for the major participants. Hillman made little of this, however; instead, he relished the role of Hermes, saying that Hermes alone had been willing to enter, imaginally, into the situation, seeing himself replacing Ares under the net with the wondrous goddess, and loving every minute of it. Hermes' ability to enter into the scene instead of staying remote & distant struck Hillman as immensely important. Hermes, for him, seemed to be a model for entering into "the terrible love of war" and really being part of it. Hermes, alone, could do this and Hillman clearly loved Hermes' brilliant move. Hillman's own entry into "The Terrible Love of War" seems akin to what Hermes did.
For myself, I had two problems: Watery Neptune, inhabitant of the sea-depths of unconscious intuition, also entered, imaginally, into that mythic bedroom-space by feeling his way into Hephaestus' pain. He paid the bride-price, which was little enough solace for a rejected husband, but it did allow Hephaestus to save his pride and retain some sense of dignity in the face of Aphrodite's betrayal and the gods' laughter. Yes, Hermes, imaginally, saw himself within the golden net with Aphrodite. But Poseidon/Neptune, imaginally, felt himself within the wounded husband and acted to alleviate that husband's pain in a less charismatic, but more humane, manner than Hermes. So, my first problem was with Hillman's elevating Hermes' behavior above Neptune's. Hermes acted as a witty puer; Neptune as a stolid but good-hearted friend. I prefer Neptune. [Note: Hermes' comedy vs. Neptune's blood-price seem to have been the only two options offered within this patriarchal tale. Had the goddesses been there, we might speculate that more options would have been available.]
My second problem has to do with the fact that, as Hillman told us, NONE of the goddesses (except for Aphrodite) were in that bedroom. The goddesses were too "scandalized" and wouldn't dignify such a farce with their presence. Hmmmm, well, hadn't Hillman considered the fact that the myth was written by males who, clearly, didn't know -- and cared less -- how goddesses might react?! That leaves out 50% of the Olympians -- the female 50%. What especially surprised me is that Hillman, who worked Hermes so well, totally ignored those silenced goddesses. [More later on this theme.]
He also made much of the fact that war is drawn to beauty and beauty to war, as evidenced, for example, by exquisitely beautiful swords inlaid with flowers, vines, and so forth. The two, love/beauty and war, are, for Hillman, natural allies.
I have a problem with that too. Maybe Aphrodite felt no attraction whatever to war, per se, but only to the raw, diamond-in-the-rough Ares, a total "hunk" from Greece's archaic period. Maybe she frankly hated war and hated that war perverted beauty and love for its own ends -- but Ares, ah, he was unique, untrained in the ways of love, and thus a splendid challenge for her. Trusting her own powers, she knew she could distract him from tedious battles with men. She had a more delicate, silken "battle" in mind for him. As long as she held him enthralled, the world had a respite of peace. Scheherazade-like, she enchanted him and kept him from his murderous habits, at least for awhile. Hillman, and legions of scholars before him, assume these two are naturally allied: love and war, war and love -- but what if Aphrodite is a far more subtle strategist than that?
I am reminded of the Greek god Pan, who loved his forests and was angered if his noontide silvan silence was broken, for noon is when he liked to nap. The word panic comes from Pan's name, and it's usually assumed that he enjoyed creating panic, especially in soldiers. This isn't so, however. Pan didn't create panic because he enjoyed it -- he created it because he loathed the hideous noise and mess of battles. If he could panic the armies before they ever engaged one another, he could ensure a time of sanity and restful silence. In our own troubled times, Pan is actually a powerful ally for those who know how to invoke him.
What if Aphrodite were akin to Pan? What if she valued, not war, but Ares himself, a man-god, a relationship, a lover, yes, a lover, not a warrior. Ares-as-warrior wouldn't be much in bed; he'd be dreaming of manly battles. But if he could be sidetracked from battlefields, his energies could be refocused from warrior to lover -- same intensity, but differently valenced. It seems to me that transforming a warrior into a lover is a far more interesting challenge for an Aphrodite than simply working with an "ordinary" lover.
Anyway, to continue with Hillman:
Today, Hillman asks, what could war want from us? -- besides actual, literal war? Reinvigoration of the body-politic? Commitment to ideals? Mobilization of youth's energy? We have to look at these aspects if we're not to wind up in an actual war. There must, he says, be other ways of understanding war in this country!
I really liked this approach (and later regretted that these points weren't developed further over the two day conference). Prior to this, he had spoken at length about war's "beauty" - e.g., the marching, costumes, music, thrill, friendships, etc, etc. It seemed like a paean to war and I was so disappointed by that (as well as what I saw as the mishandling of the Aphrodite/Ares myth) that I was seriously tempted to brave the fierce rains and leave once the first break arrived. I really don't need to waste my time listening to someone vapor on about the glories of war. Been there, done that. But when JH asked what war might want from us -- and gave those telling examples -- I was hooked.
Resuming after the break: War, he says, is a collective activity, not an individual one. Plato & the epistles of St. James agree that our bodies & psyches are always at war in all their various parts, and thus war is always with us, within and without. (But this, it seems to me, "verschmelzes," or fuses [see Gadamer], clumsily & improperly, the "horizons" [Gadamer] of psychology with militaristic technology. To argue that our interior "wars" can be thus used to extend and justify inflicting agony upon millions of innocents is a pernicious POV.)
Someone went to one of the mikes stationed around the room and returned to a pre-break topic, asking Hillman if Hephaestus had ever gotten satisfaction for his wife's betrayal. Hillman repeated that Neptune had paid the bride-price. The questioner replied that he cared about this issue because if Hephaestus did not get satisfaction, that meant he was oppressed -- and far too often, wars come from the oppressed. Hillman enthusiastically agreed. Hillman went on to explain that, according to Hannah Arendt, injustice and tyranny are the chief causes of violence; Hillman wants to add hypocrisy to Arendt's list for he says that hypocrisy is especially enraging. I totally agree -- the galling, smug hypocrisy of the "Bushies" makes me want to crack skulls -- and I'm a pacificst <wry smile>. [For more on Hannah Arendt, see this link: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/arendt.html]
[5:30am-ish, 11/20/02: to be continued.......]
[Continuing, 11/21/02, 1:23am]: Still staying with Arendt, Hillman says that, according to her, to say that animals are innately aggressive and so are we, since we too are "animals" & thus incorporate their aggression as part of our own nature, really begs the issue. Arendt argues that human aggression & violence actually have a good deal of logic and reason behind them, for they are born out of injustice & tyranny. To react violently to injustice & tyranny is indeed a logical, rational response (this is not to say that it is the only response, I'd add, for non-violence is also a rational strategy; nevertheless, her point is well taken). So we can't just use the "metaphor" of animal violence, applied to humans, to argue that we're helplessly programmed for violence, being animals ourselves, because that lets us sidestep the real need for serious thought about these matters.
Then Hillman turned to Rene Girard's Violence & the Sacred. Hillman says that Girard argues that societies NEED wars and/or "scapegoats" (i.e., demonized leaders like Osama and Saddam) to keep them cohesive. (FYI: Girard is a Eurocentric "innate aggressionist" -- i.e., he argues that humans are innately violent and that religion exists only to channel such aggression into blood-sacrifices, momentarily defusing the aggression. My own 1992 dissertation deconstructs this POV and offers alternative philosophies and strategies from indigenous, earth-based societies where aggression does indeed occur, but is not innate, is not psyche's "default position," and thus can be handled without necessarily involving war or blood-sacrifice.) Hillman says that Bush is following Girard's pattern: we must all be with Bush if we are to remain cohesive, united. Hillman says that if Girard is right, dissension is indeed "traitorous" because it rips apart the body-politic. The way Hillman subtly links Girard to a monotheistic, united stance is brilliant -- and chilling. He never really overtly deconstructs Girard -- you'd almost have to know where Girard is going to catch Hillman's critique. Yet it's there -- and I deeply appreciate it. Hillman does irritate me at times, but his ability to see through Girard (whom too many uncritically revere), also endears him to me.
During the question/discussion portion, a woman (Laura?), who teaches political science (?), told us that Cyprus, birthplace of Aphrodite, is the most militarized place on earth and the so-called Great Powers deliberately allowed this in order to keep two NATO powers (Greece & Turkey) from war. Strange irony. Hard to know how to feel: glad that there's no war? or sorrow that it's so militarized.
In responding to another question, Hillman repeated that according to Hannah Arendt, violence is a rational reaction to injustice. He said that, unfortunately, Americans don't accord that quality of rationality to our enemies, which is a great shame and something we truly need to re-think.
To another question, Hillman made a few random comments and then realized that he hadn't really answered the question. After a wry laugh, he defended himself by saying, "Well, I don't have to swing at every pitch." That got quite a laugh and I too really enjoyed it (may use that line in my own classroom in the future ::chuckle::).
He said that in WWII, 26% of the European casualities were psychiatric casualities. So, he pointed out, war does terrible things to "normal" men, which is a strong & convincing argument in favor of having a genuine warrior class, as in ancient India and elsewhere, in which members of that warrior class were born and bred to the work and would never be "psychiatric casualities."
An audience member commented that this country has been bombarded with fear over the past year and now may seek the "ecstasy" of war and transcendence. Hillman agreed but found it horrible and "fearful" because fear-based reactions are so dangerous.
Another question elicited the following comments from Hillman: he said that weapons of mass destruction have totally changed how we now think about war. The existence of such weapons numbs, blocks, the imagination -- something now wants war, not for the killing, but for the transcendent religious experience. He added that there's somehing horrible about all transcendence-based religion. How can I not agree? -- nevertheless, I was still chilled by such words. [FYI: the Bushies, of course, all follow a transcendence-based Christianity and seem likely to drag the rest of us along with them. Why don't the Democrats take a more courageous stance? I can't forget that Bush, Sr. once ran the CIA. This means that Bush, Jr. probably has enough dirt to blackmail anyone he wishes.]
Friday Night Dinner Break
[11/21/02, 2:54am: to be continued...]
Courtesy of Russian Sunbirds
[Friday, 12/13/02, 3:10am, resuming...]:
There was a film on the Civil War scheduled for this first evening; it included on-site interviews with Hillman & several friends. Hillman introduced it by saying that the Civil War was the wounding of American innocence; he also said he wanted to be the therapist to the nation, not just to individuals. Some of our students also aspire to this -- I think it's a fine calling.
The film showed us that Gettysburg was a place of natural beauty -- & Hillman argued that Persephone had to be raped in those cornfields and orchards of apples and peaches [the film's visuals were great -- I was glad I'd stayed]. The film: There's a fertility in all that death. The battlefields don't seem sick -- they've become fertile & sacred from being fought over so grievously. [From my own POV, however, they were always fertile, always sacred. How did Mars/War cause a willingness to destroy them like that?! -- how could normal men have been persuaded to mow down shimmering golden cornfields and slaughter all those fellow-humans?!] /// Now we need to fertilize our imaginations, Hillman says.
Hillman feels the land required the blood -- we had to pay a huge blood-price to that land. We Europeans didn't really "land" here until the Civil War. The great goddess of the earth demanded sacrifice -- and maybe that's why the war went on so long: earth-spirits wanted more blood and the war couldn't end until they had enough.
[12/13/02, 3:41am: to be continued...][I'm appalled by the rhetoric about earth's creating a ritual on her own to be fed by blood!][Monday, 11/6/06, 12:40am, resuming... -- it seems strange to continue after 4 years. But when I retired and left California in spring 2003 and got settled in my new house in SW Michigan, these Hillman notes were among the first things I unpacked and lay on my desk. They have never been further than 8" from my computer ever since. Because more people are now viewing this page, I wish to finish these notes because the issues he raises are even more relevant today than they were 4 years ago.
Postscript, Tuesday, 2 November 2011, 1:24am: to clarify what I forgot to add 5 years ago -- having those notes so close at hand kept me in a "2002 time-warp" -- 4 years had passed, yes, but my brain, strangely, still accepted those notes as if they'd been written only days before]:
He's saying America doesn't know how to lose -- we're unable to be vulnerable, weak. "The Lost Cause" of the South fed a huge fantasy and imagination (great writers from Mississippi, etc); great imagination was catalyzed to deal with defeat.
Saturday Morning, 9 November 2002, 10am
[I arrived an hour late -- it actually started at 9am]
Hillman says that a hero not connected to the gods isn't a hero. (Good!) [Hillman seems to have been talking about madness in Ares, heroes, etc -- pity they're not taping this! Achilles, Ajax (example of one whose fatal flaw was his desire not to be helped by gods), etc.]
A woman named Jane (who doesn't like me) points out that when Venus and Mars couple, the artist is betrayed and we lose some aspect of imaginative integrity. JH counters that Hephaestus made weapons and that beauty continues to be allied with that aspect of his work, so he doesn't feel it's that relevant a comment [o good grief -- Jane was onto something important but he missed it and she didn't follow up].
He speaks well on the difference between Apollonic/nuclear/apocalyptic/spiritual/transcendental war and our more familiar martial war. The fire of one is of the aether, the other is of the earth. "Nuclear" has no ancestors in the imagination; it's a broken connection. Martial war is full of ancestors, monuments, statues, tradition. Apocalypse isn't part of war. Mars wants battle, not wipe-out; engagement, not Nike [FYI: remote Goddess of Victory]. Christian indentification with the transcendent Christ may be more dangerous than Mars himself [a chilling but accurate insight].
Hillman comments that Michael Ventura says the old religion becomes demonic -- and there's no better place for the devil to hide today than in the current image of Christ: it carries the demonic force. Nuclear creates stupor; Mars intensifies sensation; he awakens fear, which may help us defeat those who want nuclear. Mars is Ares, the Ram -- the beginning of the astrological wheel. Nuclear breaks the wheel entirely in a final solution. Peace won't stop nuclear -- all that will stop it is a martial populace acting to stop it.
Then he turns again to the Civil War, saying that the South's memories are deep and connected to family and land. The North can more easily put it all aside because it lacks such deep memories. /// He wonders how the Vietnamese can handle their experience without revenge. He says South Africa also seems to be handling it through reconciliation, not revenge. We demand unconditional surrender and will slaughter til we get it (akin to Greeks and Persians too, he adds, but not Renaissance wars).
He continues by saying that the emphasis on the Holocaust is wrong -- we need to focus on the rise of totalitarianism, because there's a Hitlerian element to Bush. /// Catherine Firpo (11/2/11: one of our myth students) took the mike and spoke very well on Hiroshima, reconciliation, and our inability to face our killing shadow. Unfortunately, the aides cut her off.
JH is distrustful of the attitude that wants to ignore "feeling" and simply get a balance between nuclear explosions in the Big Bang (and in the night skies) versus actual nuclear bombs. If someone wants to get behind it all and find the "harmony," he finds that inflated, New Age -- a "metaphysical" thinking that transcends the problem by getting above it. It makes him explode. /// An audience member says he should get beyond his terror of the horror and face those who think metaphysically. Hillman says those are his limits -- the "metaphysical"-thinkers forget the BLOOD. [Bravo!! -- for it's my POV too.]
Saturday Lunch Break
[from Hillman's flyer for this seminar]
Resuming after break: on books, Hillman recommends Brown's Life Against Death along with Arendt and Girard. Those are his top three.
On Arendt's views: violence = acting without speech and with no regard for consequences: e.g., Billy Budd kills a bad man without a thought. Rage is allied with violence and we can't "cure" it without dehumanizing the species. Rage is absolutely natural when we encounter certain wrongs. Violence is different from power. Violence needs an instrument -- e.g., gun, baseball bat, etc. Power needs support, institutions, legitimacy, tradition, consensus. As government power weakens, violence arises. Violence doesn't need support, just instruments. If it supplants power, you get terrorists, who are an atomization of society. But JH argues that what we call terror is another form of power that relies on support, etc. Force is violence controlled by power -- e.g., police. Injustice, tyranny, faceless bureaucracy (e.g., HMO's), and hypocrisy are triggers for violence.
He mentions a book by Noel Perrin who describes how the Japanese used guns for a century and then abandoned them and returned to swords. The reason seemed to be that the aesthetics of swords was far more important than the effectiveness of guns.
In the West, Protestants cared more for effective guns and did away with aesthetics. Before them, Catholics had loved beauty plus efficiency. Blame Protestants for the ugliness. The Japanese placed a premium on beauty -- swords demand more grace in the moving or standing body -- you're not a gentleman if you don't do this correctly. A man firing a gun is awkward; he breaks his chi and the models of aesthetic principles, etc. This shows the power of aesthetic thinking. When we split asthetics from efficacy (beauty from good), we get the rise of functionality.
An audience member points out that the Japanese aristocracy took the guns away from commoners to reduce competition with the samurai. So there was more going on than aesthetics.
JH responds that it took years to learn the sword -- you studied the sword to learn soul and you studied the soul to learn the sword -- a big reason Japan got rid of guns, because guns have no soul.
(My problem with this is that being killed with a "soulful" sword is no more aesthetic, and no less grisly, than being killed with a gun or a bomb. And if you have to study the sword to learn soul, perhaps something's wrong with your definition of "soul." Hillman, in justly criticising those who think too metaphysically about nuclear war, said the metaphysical-thinkers forget the BLOOD. But the same criterion should be applied to those who think too aesthetically about instruments of death.)
An audience member, Roger, who teaches dreams, says it used to be women who wrote on PTSD resulting from rape. But the last 4-5 years he finds it's young male undergrads whose writing on PTSD is of Vietnam and their dads. Roger fears their desire to make amends [to their dads] is being co-opted by their rising nationalism -- these young men now want a great victory. [Scarey!]
Chinese way of war versus Karl von Clausewitz:
The Chinese have 5 major centers of gravity from which enemy power comes, and which need to be attacked. Chinese first attack enemy's strategy, or plans, before outbreak of war. (Karl von Clausewitz first destroys enemy, then seizes its capital.)
Chinese #2 is to disrupt the enemy's alliances before outbreak of war (Saddam did this to us by breaking our alliances with France, Russia, etc). [If JH gave Clausewitz's #2, I missed it.]
Chinese #3 is to attack the army of the enemy. (Clausewitz says to deliver an effective blow against the enemy's principal's ally since he would already have destroyed the enemy.)
Chinese #4 is to attack enemy's cities with all its civilians as a last resort. (Clausewitz's #4 is to attack enemy's leader.)
Unfortunately, JH left out the 5th step but, overall, this was an interesting comparison "between thinking strategically [China] versus thinking forcefully [Clausewitz]."
Then Hillman turned to George W. Bush's psychology. He said there's an Oedipal problem between Sr. and Jr. -- Jr. wants to kill Sr. but can't so he wants instead to kill the one [Saddam] who wants to kill the father. The more one feels impotent, the more one's violent. There are also parallels between Bush Jr. and Hitler. Bush says he is the defense of the nation. He's coalesced himself with the USA, and that's what Hitler did very early in Germany. Bush's mission is the USA's mission. He could be a "dry drunk" -- his "stinking thinking"-patterns are awry, whether he's drinking or not. They're paranoid, explosive, irritable, pouty, need enablers, etc. [JH says this data is from "Buzz Flash" on the web -- JH's role here is to look at misc. theories about Bush.] Bush expands, like Hitler, to embrace the whole Nation but narrows way down in terms of repressing those who oppose him. ///
Man in audience: that which you fail to commune with, ends by possessing you. That is how this man sums up Hillman's POV over the past 30 years.
JH says no ritual could stop this Iraq war -- too far-fetched even to imagine such a thing. Only deal-making will stop it. ///
He ends the conference by saying we need to remember the wound, but not for revenge. We need to remember it in order to deepen the wound and keep "working it" and finding new ways.
This concludes my notes from November 2002.
6 November 2006, 3:20am ***
Common Themes: Wars, Weapons,
and Lies: The Dehumanizing Impulse
Common Themes: Artists & Muses: The Creative Impulse
Eastern Europe: Kosovo-Serbian Invocation's Background
(Includes quoted passages from Simone Weil's work, The Illiad, or the Poem of Force)
Common Themes: Quotes on War
Menu of Common Themes, East & West
(see my Home page for additions after November 2002):
Animal Deaths in Europe: Of Cows & Madness
Artists & Muses: The Creative Impulse
Creation Myths I
Creation Myths II
Crones & Sages
Dragons & Serpents
Food: Sacrality & Lore
THE FOUR ELEMENTSEARTH:Green Men
Land: Sacrality & Lore (mountains, caves, labyrinths, spiral mounds, crop & stone circles, FengShui)
Earth Day & Environmental Issues
Earth Goddesses & Gods
Air: Sacrality & Lore (air, wind, sky, storms, clouds, weather lore)
Air, Wind, & Sky Goddesses & Gods
Fire: Sacrality & Lore (fire, northern lights, green-flashes, Elmo's Fire)
Fire & Solar Goddesses & Gods
Water: Sacrality & Lore(water, wells, springs, pools, lakes)
Floods & Rainbows: Mythologies & Science
Water & Lunar Goddesses & Gods
Nature Spirits of the World
Rituals of Birthing [forthcoming]
Rituals of Puberty
Rituals of Death & Dying
Rituals of Weather-Working: An experimental, on-going ritual in cyberspace
Sacred Theatre, Dance & Ritual
Star Lore & Astrology
Symbols, Signs, & Runes
Time(Calendars, Clocks, Natural Temporal Cycles, Attitudes toward Time, & Millennium Issues)
Trees & Plant Lore
Tricksters, Clowns, Magicians, Jesters & Fools
Wars, Weapns & Lies: The Dehumanizing Impulse\
James Hillman: The Terrible Love of War
Weaving Arts & Lore (Cosmic Webs, Spinning, Spindles, Clothing)
Mything Links Reference Pages:
Down to Geographical Regions: Africa
MythingLinks Search Engine
Cross-cultural, Multi-regional, Interdisciplinary Collections
General Reference Page (online libraries, reference help, literary texts, world languages, word-lover sites, help on writing research papers, copyright information, film plots, themes, and/or films representing various historical periods)
Special Interest Sites for Pacifica Faculty, Students & Colleagues(includes Jung, Campbell, Freud, Eliade, Otto, Hillman, other depth psychologists, mysticism, anthropology, religious studies, archetypal perspectives, foundations for mythology & psychology, relevant journals, books, videos, etc.)
Teachers' Reference Page for Primary & Secondary School Education