shameless self promotion

"Totoum",

Well, I initially and inauspiciously thought that the entire essential enterprise of this select and surprising series was something of a jarring juxtoposed Jungian folktale? Thus, I was not essentially saying or assuming that you were deliberately dismisive or directly discounting the delightful "Symbolism" found in this production. What my prospective main point was to pensively promote the commentary that symbolism is often much more than what most individuals intentionally intend!


I thought your clever comment was consciously crafted and intended as a clearly humourous counterpoise to my own, somewhat self-confessed, sly contrarian commentary. However, when I read your comments, I was suddenly struck by the strategic opportunity to skillfully employ some delightful Jungian duality deliberately designated and demonstratably intended to make an intentionally impactful image or reflective reflexive Rico-chet (The poorly placed pun was penned quite intentionally.) impression back upon you. Really, I simply could not readily resist, and I had always intended to eventually bring up the points involving Jung, but I had first wanted to bring up the core key concept of the Mythic Super-Hero and the "Unexpected Hero". As I mentioned, I feel that both folkloric strands are directly involved and interestingly intertwined into this inspired series. Even if I generally believe that the "Unexpected Hero" aspect is generally the most prominent imagery, the deeply dire and depresing theme overlaying the series, the series stridently seems to selectively borrow more from the doomed, sacrificial "Mythic Hero" tales in its overall structure?


You see, I deliberately wanted to introduce Jung into these prospective and probative proceedings, but I really wanted to wait on this. After you seemed to open the door wide, by a hilarious highly humourous mode, I felt that I simply could not resist the invitation. However, I also wanted to prospectively bring up some other particular points regarding Jung, elements which you seemed to selectively suggest with your own commentary? You will find that he (Jung) actually performed some simply startling and strikingly interesting research on the components of ready recall or remembering--all the better to remember the story, my dear.


You will posibly note that most memory experts skillfully and stridently suggest that the individual, seeking to remember some face or name or some other potential point prospectively needed to be fixed into long-term memory, must ideally try to combine the thoughts into some outlandishly jarring wierd jockular images which are directly designed to juxtopose 2 widely divergent thoughts, concepts, or images which never seem to come together or are thought of normally. Thus, memory improvement books or articles adamantly assert that mixing 2 widely divergent diametrically opposed elements into a single absurd image will assertively aid one's recall and boost one's ability to remember all manner of things. This, from my readings of Jung's work, is simply another amazing aspect of Jungian Duality, and in a very direct way, it lies at the... heart of this series (No, I am not referring to the brainwashing or "Conditioning" which wipes their worldly memories.).


Some memory researchers comment that we can not really recall or remember anything unless it is already connected to something which we already know or have remembered. Thus, we have something of an additional foundational component which expresses another component which is tangently related to the "Connectivist School". This widely disparate and wide ranging school of thought (applications derived from this school successively range from computer design to neuro physiology) initially came to the fore because it seemed to offer the principle that our minds do not operate on the understanding that any single idea or thought can reside in a select set of identifiable neurons, but our minds or memories work by the network of connections which our neurons make with each other. Therefore, we have the proposed angle that it is the number and shape of connections which compose or comprise our collective memories and not the actual neurons themselves.


One component of this "neural network" approach to our minds is that if our minds operate by the network of connections within our mind strung between the neurons themselves, then it is logical to assume that ideas and thoughts are best made by making as many associations and connections between them as we are able? This insight leads us to the assumption that all things are interconnected and interrelated. Physicists, we find, are now identifying the immensely interesting interplay between particles, called "Quantum Entanglements". This theory tangentially suggests, and some have proposed, that the Universe itself is simply something of an information storage system, and it conceivably works on the quantum level as the assembled associations between quanta permaniates the Multi-verse--not just this universe alone!


This entire discussion of information and memory is intensely interesting because Jung's work seems to suggest that the "Collective Unconscious" plays a role in all of this. It appears that the "Collective Unconscious" seems to pre-exist in our minds as we are formed, and from this, it might be assumed that it is a main source of our mind connecting with the information which we are being subected or exposed to daily. Thus, the "Collective Unconscious" might explain how we remember? One researcher commented in a certainly curious manner, that we remember or have the ability to recall what is, essentially, already in our minds! This phraseology is somewhat prescient and it seems to precisely support what Jung is also saying when he described the "Collective Unconscious"?


Admittedly, he (Jung) does not say so directly, but I will assert that some of his writings do seem to strongly suggest, or they, at least, imply this to be the case?


Some cultural anthropologists have tried to come up with reasons why man became a symbolic using being/animal? The present prehistoric anthropological sites are said to suggest that Modern Man became symbolic fairly late--only in the last 40,000 years (This is reputedly when we find a dramatic upsurge in symbolic carvings on artifacts and paintings explosively come dramatically to the fore.). I might deliberately debate this described date, but it seems to be the generally accepted figure. Nevertheless, the current interest is to try and find what first fueled this, so called, "Symbolic Revolution". It is surely speculated or sometimes assumed that speech was the main trigger in this entire evolutionary event.


Speech, it is, or was, assumed, was first used to better coordinate the hunting of game; later it also served to enhance the cooperative work efforts being done; as well as to strengthen the overall interpersonal relationships by the tribe over time. Communication was believed to better and more tightly integrate the family tribes internal ties and inspire loyality and sacrifice. However, the overall problem here is to try and determine how or why "Symbolic Speech" originated, and how it (symbolism) eventually cascaded and was clearly the key component into all future the aspects of human endeavour.


Jung's work with folktales offers some insight into this via his "collective Unconscious", but the real innovation is brought about by "Evolutionary Psychology". Evolutionary Psychology proposes the idea that any and all behaviors are the long-term result of some Darwinian advantageous outcome resulting from some genetic tendencies interacting with our environment.


Thus, we have the case with symbolic speech that it is or was initially very useful as a means for one individual in the tribe to describe to everyone else where some advantageous source of food or danger may be located which they found themselves, but that it was important to relate to the rest of the group. However, it is obvious that for speech to really be "symbolic", then speech had to offer greater symbolism that would be present under this rather limited set of examples.



This is where it (Symboloic speech) becomes immensely important as a device or a means to assert some strong sense of unity of the tribe. This unity also had a practical advantage as well. To function more efficently, some needed store of information would needed to be passed down from generation to generation. Thus, those who could better recall and remember this generationally passed down information would be more successful than those who could not, or did not recall the information. Stories relating as to what happened when the men were out hunting, or what the women were doing during their hunting and gathering served as an improved means to better integrate the activities of the group, and the relay of what each had seen during their travels improved the possibilites for the group as a whole. Thus, the men could take advantage of any game the women saw, or the women could better arrange their gathering of food stuffs which the men had possibly seen during their hunting.



These stories being told at the end of the day, as is eminently logical to assume, ostenciably, were composed so as to inform the others what they had seen and experienced served as a means to make the group as a whole more competitive in a strictly Darwinian sense. Thus, each generation was likely purged of those who did not possess the generative genes which encouraged one to desire to listen or desire to relate what they had seen which would be important for the group as a whole.


Lets go forward in time some generations, and we should observe that the joint supporting aspects that symbolic speech offers for better resource gathering and the comcommitant improvement in group cohesiveness by virtue of the ability to constantly talk to each other about all manner of situations. This leads us assume the eventual result came about that groups eventually started to tell stories for a variety of purposes. Partly to transmit direct information, but it also served to transmit how one should set one's mind or adopt a particular mind-set about how to accomplish a hunt or better gather the food-stuffs.



We find that today, people do not really remember lists of things. We remember things best is they are set within a story format. There is even a management school which proposes that the ideal manager leads by "Storying Around". Essentially, the goal of the manager should be to inculcate the rules and norms of the organization by telling stories which illustrate how these aspects can be important. Ideally, they should be true and factually detailed stories, but it is also most important the the leader should use story formats to accomplish this task of inspiration. We simply remember and relate to stories--not lists of things. This feature seems to be hard-wired in our minds, and this situation offers support to my contention that this storytelling format was clearly derived from an "Evolutionary Psychology" prospective or rationale.


Well, it is logically obvious we are clearly hard-wired so as to remember stories, to tell stories, and to enjoy stories. Significantly, it is self-evident that this is all derived from a clearly Darwinian perspective. This is not to stridently say that Darwin was supposedly right about everything, but it is to be recognized that even the Bible strongly supports the notion that selective breeding, within the context of animal husbandry, can alter the overall genetic makeup and as a result change behavior of animals within one's herd over time.



We find that the hard-wired symbolic aspects come back into play again when we try and rationalize what kind of stories do we--or our ancestors--like? This is where I will relate that "Heroic Tales" are the predominate favorite of children. Children can be seen as serving as something of the pristine ideal of what people really like. Adults can all too easily be fooled, and they can often be fooled to fool themselves ("The Emperor's New Clothes", where the lowest child was the one who spoke up and said the truth!). So, it is often the case that it is best to see what children like, and from this we will really find what adults really like. I will possibly go further with this terrificially interesting tangent, but I will leave it here for now?


When we study what forms of stories people like, we look at history, and we find that until WWI, whenever editors, Publishers, great writers themselves were asked what were the 10 or 100 best books of the year, decade, or century, we find that the percentages never seemed to change. The assembled and assorted lists comprising all the selected works described as "Great Literature" or "Serious Literature" were always composed of about 85% to 90% with Heroic Literature. This result is somewhat shocking; since today, we never find any work, of what may be described as "Great Literature", much less, "Serious Literature", to hail from the lists of Heroic Literature. There is an unremitting bias today held by the Writers, Editors and Publishers against having any Heroic Literature being listed as "Great" or the "Best".


This situation is all the more ironic. After all, we have found that when we have asked third-world writers and more primative cultural representatives, who possess knowledge of their literary history, then we find that they will also give lists relating that about 85-90% of their "Great Literature" is immediatly identifiable as Heroic Literature! What is more interesting is that Dr. Joseph Campbell, not a conservative by any means, even wrote a book, "Hero With a Thousand Faces", where he related the stories of Heroes coming from widely dispersed cultures, are essentially in almost every feature are very much, virtually identical, the same. The only things that really changes happens to be the Hero's face--hence the name of his book, "Hero With A Thousand Faces".


Dr. Campbell's research invariably indicates that either the documented connections between peoples of the world is woefully innacurate, because he relates groups of peoples whose assumed contacts were not supposedly possible, or else something else which connects these widely disparate people must be in play. Unfortunately, I looked at his citations, biblography, and his index, and I found not a single reference to Jung, but I have found that in this subject that Dr. Campbell's and Jung's work seems to be in synch. So, we can possibly assume that the supposed "Connection" between these diaparate cultures is possibly the "Collective Unconscious"? (Jung has also proposed or asserted that "synchronicity" is another aspect which might also be a factor? However, I will defer describing this detail until much later--and only if asked.)


Now, we must go back to the cultural anthropology of primative man within the Evolutionary Psychology context. Thus, we find that people want to listen to stories, but they also seem to want and need inspiration. Today, we find whenever indivuals are interviewed, after they have performed some great heroic deed or task, we often find that they say they were inspired by stories of the success of others--usually stories they heard in childhood. Thus, Bibical stories are not surprisingly serve as a select model for many of today's heroes, and we also find that many folktales (fairy-tales), involving the successes of others, also serves as a model for many real life heroes. Thus, we can project a similar attitude in the past and to the circumstances which led to the preference for heroic tales.


As a result, we like heroic tales of some all conquering super hero. Tales of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Hercules, and other Mythic Heroes offers us inspiration, but we find that other forms of heroic tales also offer us inspiration. The tales of the "Unexpected Hero" are also very popular. We find that the probable reason why the tales of the "Unexpected Hero" is so popular across all cultures is that we are possibly even more inspired by the Heroic tales of someone who seems to possesses even fewer resources or skills or strengths than ourselves. Thus, if we see or read or have heard tales where an "Unexpected Hero" accomplishes great deeds, then it intently inspires us to accomplish our own mundane everyday tasks, but do so in a better and more upbeat manner. For our minds encourage us with the idea that if even little girls or small boys can achieve great heroic deeds, then, maybe, we can too!


However, I will readily admit that "Gunslinger Girl" seems to borrow significantly from the tales of the "Mythic Hero". I mean that in many tales of "Super Heroes" (Mythic Heroes) we find that they are often presented as being almost god-like; thus, the strategic attempt in most of the tales and myths from time immorial is critically and crucially made to make them appear more human and, hence, more vulnerable. We find that in the classic "Unexpected Hero" tale, the small size, young age, or the female gender of the prospective hero, would tend to make one see and immediately recognize their frailities and vulnerability. What is typical of the pattern with the "Mythic Hero" is that they (The Hero) are protrayed in situations which reveal their hidden humanity or their in-herent vulnerability. Something which does not need to be stridently illustrated with the case involving the "Unexpected Hero". Thus, we find an example of an element where the 2 sorts of tales diverge and typically the stories themselves do not possess these self-contained story aspects if they involve the hero type of the other.


The Gunslinger Girls are an odd blend of the "Unexpected Hero" and he "Mythic Super Hero". They certainly clearly possess augmented super strength, reflexes, and expert training. Also, we find that they are constantly armed with an assortment of superior weaponry. However, we find that they are constantly being shown relating to each other, and to their "Brothers", as nothing more than very emotionally vulnerable little girls. Some critics (All actually) assume that this arrangement is solely because the story is one of relationships and the action is simply superfulous, but I would care to comment that it (the action) all serves as much more than simply this arrangement as the critics suppose.


The essential reason why it (Gunslinger Girl) is a story of "Relationships" is that the girls need, from a folkloric literary perspective, to be presented as having human vulnerabilities and frailities. Otherwise, they, like the Mythic Super Heroes, would not have a perceived human connection (Which is just how the Doctor's and many of the "brothers" seem to see their charges); thus, it transpires that we could not actually love them as fellow humans if they were not projected and presented in scenes where they are profiled as little girls. Essentially, we fidn that all of this emphasis on relationships is stylistically required if this tale is to conform successfully to the fabeled formulaic format found favored in folklore. Thus, the necessity to protray the girls as truly little girls is to reinforce, just like the tales of Mythic Super Heroes, that they are human and deserve our love and affection by this alone. They are vulnerable, and not just to the physical risks of their heroic deeds, but they are vulnerable to the relationship risks which all humans, especilly children, have with those whom they love or interact.




I will stop here, but I have left so many things unfinished and dangling, I really need to write this up and edit it? I suppose it is something like a James Joyce stream-of-consciousness commentary?