'Know thyself' has been the maxim meted out to me by the daimon - at birth, at conception, in a previous lifetime, or in a dimension outside the consensual time- space continuum, I have no idea. Whatever, it lies outside the categories of choice, and is something over which I have little control. As examined by James Hillman in 'The Soul's Code', the daimon's calling appears to have shaped my life more than anything more conventional psychologies can come up with.
Much orthodox psychology circles round the so-called nature/nurture debate. On the nurture side, developmental psychology looks at a person from the viewpoint of the various influences on this life: parental relationships and early experiences are particularly scrutinised - familiar therapy territory. On the nature side, it's all genes, DNA, braincell chemistry: you're hard-wired and that's that. Archetypal psychologist James Hillman, however, proposes a third option, demonstrated by his 'acorn theory'. Just as the mature oak tree is already contained in the acorn, so is our personal destiny already present whan we are just little humans. Our 'calling' is to bring to maturity the particular shape, colour, flavour, of our own unique and individual acorn. And it is the daimon that facilitates the process, and with whom we must remain in contact in order to bring our life to fruition.
So the notions of daimon and acorn appear to describe (rather than explain) what has unfolded over the years of my life more satisfactorily than anything else I have come across. But to follow the daimon's calling of 'knowing myself' has involved abandoning the narrower confines of 'self' as enshrined in conventional ego psychology. To speak in Jungian terms, it has necessitated firstly a descent beyond ego into personal unconscious (including encounter with the Shadow), then entry into the collective unconscious (anima and archetypes). Still further, it has meant contact with what Jung tentatively refers to as the psychoid, and what Hillman approaches in his work on 'the soul of the world', where our connectedness with absolutely everything is brought into focus. Paradoxically, knowing yourself leads to the realisation that you are not a separate entity at all, but are intimately related to everything else. And for this leap into identity with the animal, plant and conventionally inanimate worlds, it may be necessary to leave behind Jung and his disciples, and take as guides and mentors those traditions that have not lost contact with these dimensions of reality in the first place - I am speaking primarily of so-called 'primitive' and shamanic cultures.
Attending to the call of the daimon has also led me back, into history, prehistory and beyond, in the search for origins. 'Who am I? Where do I come from?' I was on this track during my late teens when, in the quest for the origins of human nature, I read 'African Genesis' and 'The Territorial Imperative' by Robert Ardrey. In these tomes, Ardrey explores the 'killer ape' theory, stating that our australopithecine ancestors out on the East African plains evolved through cunning and learning how to kill, the implication being that violence is part of our inheritance and viciousness an ineradicable aspect of our nature.
I recall Ardrey devoting a good portion of his writings to baboon troops, which are strictly hierarchical, highly territorial, and not very kind and tolerant places to be. The lesson was not lost on me, and got me into a good deal of family trouble. I once told my father that he was acting out of a sense of head-of-family dominance. This was intended as a matter-of-fact statement, but my father took it as an accusation (probably sensing his own head-of-family dominance being challenged by a rebellious young buck), and never fully forgave me, I suspect.
As time has passed, I have come to view this search for our true nature through the discovery of our origins as a chimera. There is no starting point to our being human that defines us; nature contains an infinite number of possibilities, and we will most likely find there what our biases lead us to (as in the case of Ardrey). As an example, we can look at some of our closest non-human relatives. Chimpanzees are capable of considerable empathy and compassion, yet their lives are structured quite hierarchically, and they can be quite vicious. The chimp's closest relative the bonobo (sometimes called the pygmy chimp) is very different, however. Bonobo society functions in a far more co-operative way, with a polymorphous sexuality and generally more laid-back approach to life (the bonobo has been called the hippie ape). So a look into the past and at our non-human relatives can provide a sense of wonder and of endless possibilities. But as for finding a definitive moment that points to who we essentially are as human beings, this is a search doomed to failure.
Much orthodox psychology circles round the so-called nature/nurture debate. On the nurture side, developmental psychology looks at a person from the viewpoint of the various influences on this life: parental relationships and early experiences are particularly scrutinised - familiar therapy territory. On the nature side, it's all genes, DNA, braincell chemistry: you're hard-wired and that's that. Archetypal psychologist James Hillman, however, proposes a third option, demonstrated by his 'acorn theory'. Just as the mature oak tree is already contained in the acorn, so is our personal destiny already present whan we are just little humans. Our 'calling' is to bring to maturity the particular shape, colour, flavour, of our own unique and individual acorn. And it is the daimon that facilitates the process, and with whom we must remain in contact in order to bring our life to fruition.
So the notions of daimon and acorn appear to describe (rather than explain) what has unfolded over the years of my life more satisfactorily than anything else I have come across. But to follow the daimon's calling of 'knowing myself' has involved abandoning the narrower confines of 'self' as enshrined in conventional ego psychology. To speak in Jungian terms, it has necessitated firstly a descent beyond ego into personal unconscious (including encounter with the Shadow), then entry into the collective unconscious (anima and archetypes). Still further, it has meant contact with what Jung tentatively refers to as the psychoid, and what Hillman approaches in his work on 'the soul of the world', where our connectedness with absolutely everything is brought into focus. Paradoxically, knowing yourself leads to the realisation that you are not a separate entity at all, but are intimately related to everything else. And for this leap into identity with the animal, plant and conventionally inanimate worlds, it may be necessary to leave behind Jung and his disciples, and take as guides and mentors those traditions that have not lost contact with these dimensions of reality in the first place - I am speaking primarily of so-called 'primitive' and shamanic cultures.
Attending to the call of the daimon has also led me back, into history, prehistory and beyond, in the search for origins. 'Who am I? Where do I come from?' I was on this track during my late teens when, in the quest for the origins of human nature, I read 'African Genesis' and 'The Territorial Imperative' by Robert Ardrey. In these tomes, Ardrey explores the 'killer ape' theory, stating that our australopithecine ancestors out on the East African plains evolved through cunning and learning how to kill, the implication being that violence is part of our inheritance and viciousness an ineradicable aspect of our nature.
I recall Ardrey devoting a good portion of his writings to baboon troops, which are strictly hierarchical, highly territorial, and not very kind and tolerant places to be. The lesson was not lost on me, and got me into a good deal of family trouble. I once told my father that he was acting out of a sense of head-of-family dominance. This was intended as a matter-of-fact statement, but my father took it as an accusation (probably sensing his own head-of-family dominance being challenged by a rebellious young buck), and never fully forgave me, I suspect.
As time has passed, I have come to view this search for our true nature through the discovery of our origins as a chimera. There is no starting point to our being human that defines us; nature contains an infinite number of possibilities, and we will most likely find there what our biases lead us to (as in the case of Ardrey). As an example, we can look at some of our closest non-human relatives. Chimpanzees are capable of considerable empathy and compassion, yet their lives are structured quite hierarchically, and they can be quite vicious. The chimp's closest relative the bonobo (sometimes called the pygmy chimp) is very different, however. Bonobo society functions in a far more co-operative way, with a polymorphous sexuality and generally more laid-back approach to life (the bonobo has been called the hippie ape). So a look into the past and at our non-human relatives can provide a sense of wonder and of endless possibilities. But as for finding a definitive moment that points to who we essentially are as human beings, this is a search doomed to failure.
