HOw the seasons come into being.Euhemerus: gods are historical figures and they have divine status. Criticism is science: objectivity and order.Literature is the combination of history and philosophy.Every living poetry is a cry of poets mind.Form as a genre : Epic: Dante,Milton,but Homers epic is the best. Words are inefficient to appreciate such a lecture.
A nod to Jordan Peterson & James Frazer... and you'll find the Bible, Blake, Wordsworth, Schiller, Jung et alia all here., still present and correct! For sure our supposed myths & legends are the roots that attend our birth and sustain us throughout our lives. Sincerest thanks to the modest & knowledgeable Dr Masson! 🌈🦉
Jung, Freud & Adler were dismissed in half a lecture as "early pioneers" at my Uni in the 60's, and replaced by weeks of amassing statistics on "wrist reflexes under various control conditions". I quit for Sociology and learned years later that the Psychology Dept was generously funded by local industry. 🥴
@@mentalitydesignvideo Adler and Freud are finding parts of their ideas getting scientific support interestingly enough. Charlatan indeed. Madmen, Jung and Freud certainly were (Adler is quite reasonable), but I don't think charlatan is a correct description.
@@mentalitydesignvideo don't misunderstand me, I don't like psychoanalysis, and I have major issues with it, in particular with Jung. However, Adler is easy. Nearly all of his ideas were based on behaviour, and thus are measurable. Birth order is an easy one, it affects people all the way into their careers. Higher ranking military personnel for example, tend to be first born more than is statistically normal. Jung is bizarre, and you may be able to tell I have a negative bias towards him. However, Introvert and Extravert are Jungian terms which are now part of the scientific Big 5 personality measure. Some (five) of the following is based on a 1998 paper by Drew Westen which argues that some Freudian theories have a lot of evidence, and some of the following are my own observations or elaborations. 1. There are unconscious processes (including cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes) - we don't always know why we do what we do, and don't have conscious access to all of the brain. Imago therapy uses Freudian ideas, and the central "imago" idea is an extension of Freud's super ego, as you can see openly discussed in Dr. Hendrix's book. Rather than a theory, imago therapy is a couples therapy modality, and along with EFT and the Gottman approach, it is one of the most successful. 2. There are competing processes in the brain - there is conflict between different motivations and thoughts and beliefs, and we have to navigate between them. The id of Freudian theory covers instincts and desires, even unwanted or strange ones like addictions. The idea that we have an instinctual side that might desire things we wish we didn't is obvious to the point of being a little uncontroversial. We might call the dopamine system a component of it. 3. A lot of our personality and our ways of dealing with other people is shaped by childhood. Again imago theory and modern science leans heavily on childhood experience, and states that most of our interactions with our partner are connected to difficult childhood experiences. 4. Our relationships with other people are shaped by our mental representations of those other people (which may not always be accurate, of course) 5. That there is a succession of different developmental stages influenced by internal psychological conflicts (e.g., Freud's oral and anal stages). 6. Freud's theory of projection and transference. 7. The utility of talk therapy.
@@mentalitydesignvideo to be clear, I'm a skeptic of psychoanalysis, particularly of Jung's largely unfalsifiable ideas. However, Adler is easy. Nearly all of his ideas were based on behaviour, and thus are measurable. Birth order is an easy one, it affects people all the way into their careers. Higher ranking military personnel for example, tend to be first born more than is statistically normal. Jung is bizarre, and you may be able to tell I have a negative bias towards him. However, Introvert and Extravert are Jungian terms which are now part of the scientific Big 5 personality measure. Some (five) of the following is based on a 1998 paper by Drew Westen which argues that some Freudian theories have a lot of evidence, and some of the following are my own observations or elaborations. 1. There are unconscious processes (including cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes) - we don't always know why we do what we do, and don't have conscious access to all of the brain. Imago therapy uses Freudian ideas, and the central "imago" idea is an extension of Freud's super ego, as you can see openly discussed in Dr. Hendrix's book. Rather than a theory, imago therapy is a couples therapy modality, and along with EFT and the Gottman approach, it is one of the most successful. 2. There are competing processes in the brain - there is conflict between different motivations and thoughts and beliefs, and we have to navigate between them. The id of Freudian theory covers instincts and desires, even unwanted or strange ones like addictions. The idea that we have an instinctual side that might desire things we wish we didn't is obvious to the point of being a little uncontroversial. We might call the dopamine system a component of it. 3. A lot of our personality and our ways of dealing with other people is shaped by childhood. Again imago theory and modern science leans heavily on childhood experience, and states that most of our interactions with our partner are connected to difficult childhood experiences. 4. Our relationships with other people are shaped by our mental representations of those other people (which may not always be accurate, of course) 5. That there is a succession of different developmental stages influenced by internal psychological conflicts (e.g., Freud's oral and anal stages). 6. The utility of talk therapy, which has become commonplace almost synonymous with therapy. 7. Freud's theory of projection and transference.
I wrote a research paper last semester and used archetypal criticism. I was afraid that I might not get a good grade because it's considered a dated approach but I got the highest marks now I want to use the same theory for my thesis to analyse contemporary retellings of Greek literature. I don't have my argument or the exact direction where I want to take it but your lecture has helped significantly. Some of my misconceptions are cleared up and I have a clearer view, Thank you!!!
I love this topic, Dr. Masson. I hope you can explain to me the second essay of Sir Frye, Ethical: Theory of Symbols, please, I struggle more on this part. Thank you. Love from Ph.
Good day, Dr. Masson, I'm little bit confused on these 5 symbolic phases. I do hope you can help me understand it easier. Thank you. Literal Descriptive Formal Mythical Anagogic
Frye's doing his take (in the latter four instances) on what Dante describes as 4-fold allegory in his Epistle to Can Grande. One literal sense + 4 figurative.
Just to discuss, I think Frye was right - 51:00. We read the Bible, or the Gita, or Conrad or Baudelaire.... Without knowing about Paris, or the Middle East 2000 years ago - and the teachings and stories still resonate in our souls - that is transcendence in Literature, and what I think he means?
Of course, but the historical dimension adds further significance. His emphasis on the universal features of literature is important but he understated the significance of the particulars.
I'm a bit concerned by the specific links to Jung and Jordan Peterson. Frye is/was quite explicit that his notion of archetype is not Jungian (he laments his use of term because it has caused much confusion). Peterson's approach is also Freudian, and Frye is quite explicit also (See Words with Power) about his resistance to reducing the structural principles of myth and metaphor to psychology or anthropology (he says his ideas will be consistent with them but not reducible for very specific reasons). Using Jung or Peterson/Freud in this way I suggest misconstrues Frye's ideas, and their explanatory power.
Archetypes for Frye are verbal structures/entities rather than psychological entities. There will be a cognitive component driving them ultimately, I don't think he disputes that, and the impulses to form what become archetypal structures are expressed as his primary concerns. The materials used to form these metaphors (and structural patterns) are drawn from our environment. Contrary to the Jungian position, Frye says we never encounter pure myth -- it is always a mixture of primary and secondary concerns. Hence, his position that we need to "educate" our imaginations in order to see our mythological (cultural) conditioning. Here's an example to help illustrate Frye's position: For Frye, all gods (including the biblical one) are metaphors, specifically an identification of personality and event. Whereas the Jungian seems to say that the archetype of deity exists as a psychological element somehow (for Peterson it is the apex of the dominance hierarchy).
This makes no sense. Words correspond to an object, even if it’s an object of thought. I think Frye simply discounts the Biblical notion of revelation. But I intend on looking further into this.
@@LitProf Frye doesn't discount the notion of revelation (as far as I know). I think you're probably aware of his notion of "kerygma". Perhaps your characterization of revelation is different from Frye's? I don't disagree with you about words and objects -- and Frye doesn't either, as far as I understand him.
I have to read his book of literature, the educated imagination, and he's a wonderful critic, but for a book that aims to educate the general public, his writing makes his work hard to read. Harder than any of my science textbooks.
I have been teaching Literary Theory and Criticism for almost 10 years. I only realized recently that I had been indoctrinating my students with the majority of Marxist -isms..
There are many in the twentieth century who could be seen to continue the humanist tradition. They are studiously ignored in universities that teach literary theory.
Eagleton needs to look at New Criticism as a language game. I'm not sure about the archetype. It assumes similar sets of rules, objectives and so on. Humans are emotional. Aspects of Romanticism (seen in Marxism and elsewhere) recur via an emotional response more than it having appeared before via THE archetype
This lecture is worth ten days study about this book.... An anatomy of criticism.
It's a great book.
HOw the seasons come into being.Euhemerus: gods are historical figures and they have divine status. Criticism is science: objectivity and order.Literature is the combination of history and philosophy.Every living poetry is a cry of poets mind.Form as a genre : Epic: Dante,Milton,but Homers epic is the best. Words are inefficient to appreciate such a lecture.
Glad you appreciated it. It's such a fascinating topic.
J CS b BN v
Dam we gotta study a book in order to read that book that allows us to study other books that we read lol
How delighted I am when I see your face in the search results 🙏🏻 this channel is a true 💎!!
A nod to Jordan Peterson & James Frazer... and you'll find the Bible, Blake, Wordsworth, Schiller, Jung et alia all here., still present and correct! For sure our supposed myths & legends are the roots that attend our birth and sustain us throughout our lives. Sincerest thanks to the modest & knowledgeable Dr Masson! 🌈🦉
Thanks for your kind words
Taking a intro class to comedy film studies. Read an excerpt from Frye and found your lecture very informative. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful! Frye is really worth reading.
Jung, Freud & Adler were dismissed in half a lecture as "early pioneers" at my Uni in the 60's, and replaced by weeks of amassing statistics on "wrist reflexes under various control conditions". I quit for Sociology and learned years later that the Psychology Dept was generously funded by local industry. 🥴
Dismissed as they should be. Early charlatan, in case of Freud.
@@mentalitydesignvideo Adler and Freud are finding parts of their ideas getting scientific support interestingly enough. Charlatan indeed.
Madmen, Jung and Freud certainly were (Adler is quite reasonable), but I don't think charlatan is a correct description.
@@tehufn what support? Which ideas? Did you pick that up from advertising for psychoanalysis?
@@mentalitydesignvideo don't misunderstand me, I don't like psychoanalysis, and I have major issues with it, in particular with Jung.
However, Adler is easy. Nearly all of his ideas were based on behaviour, and thus are measurable. Birth order is an easy one, it affects people all the way into their careers. Higher ranking military personnel for example, tend to be first born more than is statistically normal.
Jung is bizarre, and you may be able to tell I have a negative bias towards him. However, Introvert and Extravert are Jungian terms which are now part of the scientific Big 5 personality measure.
Some (five) of the following is based on a 1998 paper by Drew Westen which argues that some Freudian theories have a lot of evidence, and some of the following are my own observations or elaborations.
1. There are unconscious processes (including cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes) - we don't always know why we do what we do, and don't have conscious access to all of the brain.
Imago therapy uses Freudian ideas, and the central "imago" idea is an extension of Freud's super ego, as you can see openly discussed in Dr. Hendrix's book. Rather than a theory, imago therapy is a couples therapy modality, and along with EFT and the Gottman approach, it is one of the most successful.
2. There are competing processes in the brain - there is conflict between different motivations and thoughts and beliefs, and we have to navigate between them.
The id of Freudian theory covers instincts and desires, even unwanted or strange ones like addictions. The idea that we have an instinctual side that might desire things we wish we didn't is obvious to the point of being a little uncontroversial. We might call the dopamine system a component of it.
3. A lot of our personality and our ways of dealing with other people is shaped by childhood. Again imago theory and modern science leans heavily on childhood experience, and states that most of our interactions with our partner are connected to difficult childhood experiences.
4. Our relationships with other people are shaped by our mental representations of those other people (which may not always be accurate, of course)
5. That there is a succession of different developmental stages influenced by internal psychological conflicts (e.g., Freud's oral and anal stages).
6. Freud's theory of projection and transference.
7. The utility of talk therapy.
@@mentalitydesignvideo to be clear, I'm a skeptic of psychoanalysis, particularly of Jung's largely unfalsifiable ideas.
However, Adler is easy. Nearly all of his ideas were based on behaviour, and thus are measurable. Birth order is an easy one, it affects people all the way into their careers. Higher ranking military personnel for example, tend to be first born more than is statistically normal.
Jung is bizarre, and you may be able to tell I have a negative bias towards him. However, Introvert and Extravert are Jungian terms which are now part of the scientific Big 5 personality measure.
Some (five) of the following is based on a 1998 paper by Drew Westen which argues that some Freudian theories have a lot of evidence, and some of the following are my own observations or elaborations.
1. There are unconscious processes (including cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes) - we don't always know why we do what we do, and don't have conscious access to all of the brain.
Imago therapy uses Freudian ideas, and the central "imago" idea is an extension of Freud's super ego, as you can see openly discussed in Dr. Hendrix's book. Rather than a theory, imago therapy is a couples therapy modality, and along with EFT and the Gottman approach, it is one of the most successful.
2. There are competing processes in the brain - there is conflict between different motivations and thoughts and beliefs, and we have to navigate between them.
The id of Freudian theory covers instincts and desires, even unwanted or strange ones like addictions. The idea that we have an instinctual side that might desire things we wish we didn't is obvious to the point of being a little uncontroversial. We might call the dopamine system a component of it.
3. A lot of our personality and our ways of dealing with other people is shaped by childhood. Again imago theory and modern science leans heavily on childhood experience, and states that most of our interactions with our partner are connected to difficult childhood experiences.
4. Our relationships with other people are shaped by our mental representations of those other people (which may not always be accurate, of course)
5. That there is a succession of different developmental stages influenced by internal psychological conflicts (e.g., Freud's oral and anal stages).
6. The utility of talk therapy, which has become commonplace almost synonymous with therapy.
7. Freud's theory of projection and transference.
I wrote a research paper last semester and used archetypal criticism. I was afraid that I might not get a good grade because it's considered a dated approach but I got the highest marks now I want to use the same theory for my thesis to analyse contemporary retellings of Greek literature. I don't have my argument or the exact direction where I want to take it but your lecture has helped significantly. Some of my misconceptions are cleared up and I have a clearer view, Thank you!!!
From Egypt, tip of hat for the lecture, can you help me in theory of symbol for Frye
I love this topic, Dr. Masson. I hope you can explain to me the second essay of Sir Frye, Ethical: Theory of Symbols, please, I struggle more on this part. Thank you.
Love from Ph.
Good day, Dr. Masson, I'm little bit confused on these 5 symbolic phases. I do hope you can help me understand it easier. Thank you.
Literal
Descriptive
Formal
Mythical
Anagogic
Frye's doing his take (in the latter four instances) on what Dante describes as 4-fold allegory in his Epistle to Can Grande. One literal sense + 4 figurative.
Thank you Sir. From India
Just to discuss, I think Frye was right - 51:00. We read the Bible, or the Gita, or Conrad or Baudelaire.... Without knowing about Paris, or the Middle East 2000 years ago - and the teachings and stories still resonate in our souls - that is transcendence in Literature, and what I think he means?
Of course, but the historical dimension adds further significance. His emphasis on the universal features of literature is important but he understated the significance of the particulars.
I'm a bit concerned by the specific links to Jung and Jordan Peterson. Frye is/was quite explicit that his notion of archetype is not Jungian (he laments his use of term because it has caused much confusion). Peterson's approach is also Freudian, and Frye is quite explicit also (See Words with Power) about his resistance to reducing the structural principles of myth and metaphor to psychology or anthropology (he says his ideas will be consistent with them but not reducible for very specific reasons). Using Jung or Peterson/Freud in this way I suggest misconstrues Frye's ideas, and their explanatory power.
That is a fair comment. But of course, if it is not Jungian, then what is the nature of the archetypes?
Archetypes for Frye are verbal structures/entities rather than psychological entities. There will be a cognitive component driving them ultimately, I don't think he disputes that, and the impulses to form what become archetypal structures are expressed as his primary concerns. The materials used to form these metaphors (and structural patterns) are drawn from our environment. Contrary to the Jungian position, Frye says we never encounter pure myth -- it is always a mixture of primary and secondary concerns. Hence, his position that we need to "educate" our imaginations in order to see our mythological (cultural) conditioning.
Here's an example to help illustrate Frye's position: For Frye, all gods (including the biblical one) are metaphors, specifically an identification of personality and event. Whereas the Jungian seems to say that the archetype of deity exists as a psychological element somehow (for Peterson it is the apex of the dominance hierarchy).
This makes no sense.
Words correspond to an object, even if it’s an object of thought.
I think Frye simply discounts the Biblical notion of revelation. But I intend on looking further into this.
@@LitProf Frye doesn't discount the notion of revelation (as far as I know). I think you're probably aware of his notion of "kerygma". Perhaps your characterization of revelation is different from Frye's? I don't disagree with you about words and objects -- and Frye doesn't either, as far as I understand him.
As I said, I will look into this further for the next time I teach on the subject.
Great lecture. You can access his personal library at u of t and I did.
would you mind to explain more about the theory of mythos in the third essay of anatomy of criticism, please. I do really thank you.
I have to read his book of literature, the educated imagination, and he's a wonderful critic, but for a book that aims to educate the general public, his writing makes his work hard to read. Harder than any of my science textbooks.
Thank you professor. Greetings from India
You are welcome!
Thank youu Dr Scott! Very helpful
from iraq, thank you doctor.
You are very welcome, from Canada.
Dr. Masson, how can we categorize Frye? New Critic, Archetypal Critic?
He’s not easily categorized. I think he’s a humanist but archetypal also fits.
@@LitProf thanks, Dr. Masson. You're the only expert professor of Literary Criticism on You Tube. Thanks for sharing what you know.
I have been teaching Literary Theory and Criticism for almost 10 years. I only realized recently that I had been indoctrinating my students with the majority of Marxist -isms..
@@LitProf it is nice to develop new critical literary that does not spawn Leftist ideology.
There are many in the twentieth century who could be seen to continue the humanist tradition.
They are studiously ignored in universities that teach literary theory.
Excellent. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
That’s not mr. Frye
Who me? No, I am talking about Professor Frye.
A real lecturer!
Nice
Eagleton needs to look at New Criticism as a language game. I'm not sure about the archetype. It assumes similar sets of rules, objectives and so on. Humans are emotional. Aspects of Romanticism (seen in Marxism and elsewhere) recur via an emotional response more than it having appeared before via THE archetype
Actually, the more I think about structuralism the more I hate it