I hate wonder sickness…
Once one becomes curiously studious about the affluence and literary devices in a theatrical text or performance, the same essayist critical observation is keen to dissect the sub-textual patterns and wonder of life.
I’ve experienced circumstances where the location, the subject matter, the execution of the events, and even the garments were so disturbingly poetic that I felt out of my own control and subject to some greater power.
Which does not go to say that I believe in any religious doctrine, but that I do believe that life can be entirely random and in some circumstances must not be because of the perfection of the moment; it is too far fetched to believe it was coincidence then to believe it was constructed.
During Into The Woods last term we I became mildly obsessive with Carl Jung and the collective unconscious; his work in psychology and sociology helped the thematic development of the show.
Jung quotes: “My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.”
And
“The collective unconscious - so far as we can say anything about it at all - appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious… We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.” (From The Structure of the Psyche, CW 8, par. 325.)
Thoughts, which I believe, have direct correlations to voice work. They are subconscious shapes and representations that individuals feel great kinetic pull towards or emotional stimulation. Essentially he was depicting a synchronized soul that the world intrinsically bore. Going to instate that our ability to evolve not only occurs in practical physicality but also in our deepest subconscious.
To debunk any para normality, it justifies ‘reincarnation’, ‘de ja vu’, and any other divine or nondescript conscious encounters because it states we retain dormant emotional and intellectual memory that puppeter’s our conscious mind/desires/fears and perhaps dreams.
These archetypes include events: life/death/seperation from parents
Figures: mother/father/wise old man/apollo/God
And the five main ones which are
The Self: The uniqueness of the individual and the center of the person. Although archetypes (our relationship to them or lack of) cannot excited without the self and the self cannot exist without the archetypes.
The Shadow: Traits and truths burried deep within ourselves. In order to experience individuation one must have the strength to observe these deep Shadows but not fall victim to them, or let them become the self.
The Anima: Represents true feminine presence and energy. Allows a man to be in touch with a woman.
The Animus: Reverse of the anima.
The Persona: The mask we bare to the world that is not representational of the self, more as a defensive mechanism for the Ego.
Which are all archetypes I feel I have encountered through the exploration of the voice work. I also believe they are forms we have been aware of for some time and realize we must deal with, but they are more or less represented by sensations or bold emotions.
Many people feel unique by their vague understanding of the relationship they carry with these sensations, both good and bad. I believe voice unifies us as we watch each other deal with the same archetypes. It helps alleviate a sense of judgement and fear, which is poisonous in a creative ensemble. It strengthens the ‘collective’ aspect of the collective unconscious.
What a powerful tool this is if one is to come to respect it. Within further psychological studying of this philosophy it can assist directors, artists enduring creative road blocks, ensembles working together.
When one is aware of the collective unconscious it is quite the organism to watch behave within gangs of people.
Perhaps those who are shocked by the voice work are in turn simply shocked by inherent reactions to the stimulation of the collective unconscious and a personally allowing themselves to fall vulnerable to a technique that allows us to access a communicative state with these archaic archetypes. Through vocal encouragement, we observe which ones are distressed or strong. A primordial away of externalizing a component of our unconscious that would otherwise be a kaleidoscopic jargon. Which is why it cannot be accessed through academic or scientific method but by using a faceless, personal-less but universal sounds that we are all capable of emitting.
Relating back to a past post, about communication without words, for these feelings are not words or explainable but these are entities without intellectual or physical disposition. The awakening of dormant universal soul one might say…
With this knowledge I am keen to explore my ‘human’ rather than my rational person. Although fearful of being to aware of my instincts in the process, as the will fall victim to rationality with knowledge of my observations. I am excited to learn more about how this works and its correlations with biology and psychology but am afraid I’ll learn my own ability to naturally practice and present the work.
Which also means I require a balance between being vulnerable to the work whilst I am in it, and then dissecting my experience after. I’ll get there. Work like this is fascinating because I feel as though I’m unstitching another little piece of life’s mystery. And wonder. It will make me more aware of poetry and art in life so that I a perhaps may be inspired to translated to the theatre.
I never understood those people who took marvelous magical moments and dismissed them as ‘coincidence’. It’s just sad.
If we have two options, to believe a) that synchronicity and wonder that we experience is just coincidence or b) that the (if I may quote my favourite author) ‘The marvelous is just another aspect of the real?’
Why would you not choose the later?