In Greek mythology there is a parallel to the Garden of Eden
drama. I refer to the myth of Prometheus. In simplified outline
it runs as follows:
Prometheus presided over the procedure of dividing the meat of
sacrificial victims between gods and men. Previously there had been
no need for division because gods and men ate together (ego-Self
identity). Prometheus tricked Zeus by off^ering him only the bones of
the animal covered by a layer of enticing fat. For man he reserved
all the edible meat. Zeus, angered by this trickery, withheld fire
from man. But Prometheus slipped into heaven, stole the fire of the
gods, and gave it to mankind. In punishment for this crime, Prometheus was chained to a rock where every day a vulture tore at his
liver and every night it was healed again. Punishment was also sent
to his brother Epimetheus. Zeus fashioned a woman, Par^dora, whom
he sent to Epimetheus with a box. From Pandora's box emerged all
the ills and sufferings that plague mankind—old age, labor, sickness,
vice and passion.
The process of dividing the meat of the sacrificial animal between the gods and men represents the separation of the ego
from
the archetypal psyche or Self. The ego, to establish itself as an
autonomous entity, must appropriate the food (energy) for itself.
The stealing of the fire is an analogous image for the same process. Prometheus is the Luciferian figure whose daring initiates
ego development at the price of suffering.
Considering Prometheus and Epimetheus as two aspects of the
same image we can note many parallels between the myths of
Prometheus and the Garden of Eden. Zeus withholds fire. Yahweh
withholds the fmit of the tree of knowledge. Both the fire and
the fruit symbolize consciousness which leads to a measure of
The Inflated Ego 25
human autonomy and independence from God. Just as Prometheus
steals the fire, so Adam and Eve steal the fruit in disobedience
to God. In each case a willful act is committed against the reigning
authority. This willful act is the grasping for consciousness which
is symbolized in each myth as a crime followed by punishment.
Prometheus is cursed with an unhealing wound, and Epimetheus
is cursed by Pandora and all the contents of her box. The unhealing wound is analogous to the expulsion from the Garden
of
Eden, which is also a kind of wound. The pain, labor and suffering that Pandora released are parallel to the labor, suffering and
death that Adam and Eve met after they left the Garden of Eden.
This all refers to the inevitable consequences of becoming
conscious. Pain and suffering and death do exist prior to the birth
of consciousness, but if there is no consciousness to experience
them, they do not exist psychologically. Distress is nullified if
consciousness is not present to realize it. This explains the tremendous nostalgia for the original unconscious state. In that state
one is freed from all the suffering that consciousness inevitably
brings. The fact that Prometheus' liver is eaten by the vulture during
the day and restored at night conveys a significant insight. The day
is the time of light, consciousness. The night is darkness, unconsciousness. Each one of us at night returns to that original
wholeness out of which we were born. And this is healing. It is as though
the wounding influence is not active. This indicates that consciousness itself is the wound-producer. The eternally unhealed
wound
of Prometheus symbolizes the consequences of the break in the
original unconscious wholeness, the alienation from the original
unity. It is the constant thorn in the flesh.
These two myths say essentially the same thing because they
are expressing the archetypal reality of the psyche and its course
of development. The acquisition of consciousness is a crime, an
act of hybris against the powers-that-be; but it is a necessary
crime, leading to a necessary alienation from the natural unconscious state of wholeness. If we are going to hold any loyalty
•
to the development of consciousness, we must consider it a necessary
crime. It is better to be conscious than to remain in the animal
state. But in order to emerge at all, the ego is obliged to set itself
up against the unconscious out of which it came and assert its
relative autonomy by an inflated act.
There are several different levels on which we can apply this
understanding. On the deepest level it is a crime against the
universal powers, the powers of nature, or God. But actually
26 EGO AND ARCHETYPE
in everyday life it is generally not experienced in such religious
categories, but in quite personal ways. On the personal level the
act of daring to acquire a new consciousness is experienced as a
crime or rebellion against the authorities that exist in one's personal
environment, against one's parents, and later against other outer
authorities. Any step in individuation is experienced as a crime
against the collective, because it challenges the individual's identification with some representative of the collective, whether it be
family, party, church, or nation. At the same time each step,
since it is truly an inflated act, is not only accompanied by guilt
but also runs the very real risk that one will get caught in an
inflation that carries the consequences of a fall.
We encounter many people in psychotherapy whose development has been arrested just at the point where the
necessary
crime needs to be enacted. Some say, "I can't disappoint my
parents or my family." The man living with his mother says, "I
would like to marry, but that would kill poor old mother." And
might do just that because the symbiotic relationship that may
it
exist can be a literal kind of psychic feeding; if the food is withdrawn the partner may well die! In such a case obligations to
the
mother are seen as too strong to envisage any other set of standards
for living. The sense of responsibility towards one's own individual
development has simply not yet been born.
We see the same theme operating at times in the psychotherapeutic relationship. Perhaps a negative or rebellious reaction
has emerged towards the analyst. Such a reaction may be accompanied by a great deal of guilt and anxiety, particularly if the
analyst is carrying the projection of archetypal authority. To express a negative reaction with genuine affect in these
circumstances is felt to be very similar to the crime against the gods.
It will seem to be a dangerous act of inflation certain to bring
retribution. But at some point unless the forbidden fruit is eaten,
unless one dares to steal the fire from the gods, he will remain
stuck in a dependent transference and development will not proceed.
