Hypotheses on Ulysses by Antonio Mercurio - HTML preview

The Suitors are massacred along with the servants who betrayed him by sleeping with them, but Penelope is forgiven, in contrast to the other version of the myth, in which she is instead killed as well.

The Suitors don’t represent only arrogant demands and hybris. They also represent the devouring, phallic mother who believes she can determine her children’s right to live or die at will, by constantly manipulating them through seduction, blackmail and threats.

It took Ulysses ten years to transform his arrogant heart into a humble heart. At that point it is he who has complete power over his life, instead of the omnipotent mother object.

I also wonder what Penelope, who has a heart of stone, did to transform herself so that she, too, could obtain a humble heart.
We know that her heart is of stone from Ulysses and Telemachus:

Ulysses says:

“My dear, among all women the gods who dwell on Olympus made your heart the hardest of them all;
not even a woman whose heart is so stubborn could stay away from a man who, after suffering so much, returns after twenty years to the land of his forefathers. But come, nurse, make my bed; I will sleep alone if necessary: this woman’s heart is made of iron”. (Od. XXIII, 166-172)

And Telemachus adds:

 

Telemachus scolded her and said:

“Mother dear, sad mother, with an insensitive heart,
Why do you sit so far from my father, why not sit
close to him, why not ask him questions, and listen to his answers? Not even a woman whose heart is so stubborn
could stay away from a man who, after suffering so much, returns after twenty years to the land of his forefathers. But as always your heart is harder than stone”.
(Od. XXIII, 96-103)

What we know about Penelope is that she had cried all those years hoping for her husband’s return and that she made up lies to keep the Suitors at bay. But this does not tell us anything about her transformation.

She asks Ulysses the stranger how to interpret her dream about the geese who are killed by the eagle but then she rejects his interpretation.

 

Does she, too, go through feelings of powerlessness, where she learns how to soften her heart and I just can’t see it, like I can in regards to Ulysses?

One thing I do see: the transformation has happened, because only a woman who has a humble heart and not an arrogant one could listen to Ulysses’ stories about his adventures with other women without becoming furiously angry and without making yet more plans to kill him.

CHAPTER XXXVI
FROM POWERLESSNESS TO VIRILE PERSONAL POWER BEFORE THE DEVOURING MOTHER

To be able to accept and fully experience powerlessness and center oneself on the Cosmic SELF are the two ways that Homer indicates can help us acquire the type of virile personal power that we need to overcome the devouring mother.

Ulysses’ encounter with the devouring mother is presented by Homer in the Odyssey in six different episodes:

 

The first encounter comes about in Polyphemus’ cave.

Ulysses must first watch in absolute powerlessness while Polyphemus begins devouring his companions two at a time. Then, once his rage has passed, he is capable of figuring out a plan to get out of such powerlessness and save himself.

This powerlessness is similar to the kind one can feel in regards to the abuse of power witnessed in certain human interactions or couple relationships.

The second encounter happens when the Laestrygonians devour the crews of the eleven ships that had entered the port before Ulysses got there and could quickly turn them around and sail to safety.

This type of powerlessness is similar to what human beings can feel when faced with an environmental catastrophe.

The third encounter comes about in the palace of the sorceress Circe, when a part of Ulysses’ companions are turned into swine and where Ulysses himself stays on a whole year to enjoy the favors of the beautiful Circe.

Thanks to Hermes, Ulysses has enough power so that he can subdue Circe and not become a victim of her magic.

 

This time the power to enjoy the devouring mother and give her pleasure as well overcomes the fear of being devoured. No damage is done and favors are received.

This passage from powerlessness to personal power, with Hermes' help, is reserved only for those who are willing to work hard to pass from ignorance to knowledge and from childhood to adulthood. Knowledge does confer power, but the decision to grow and to step away from the world of the mother at any cost confers much more.

The fourth encounter comes about in the Strait of Messina, where Scylla strikes Ulysses’ ship in an instant and devours six of Ulysses’ companions with its six heads. Here Ulysses is completely powerless and he can only watch, feeling great pain, while his companions are devoured.

This type of pain is similar to the pain we feel when we are powerless before natural catastrophes like earthquakes, tsunami and hurricanes. One must only escape as quickly as possible; there is no other way to save oneself.

The fifth encounter happens when Ulysses is shipwrecked on Calypso’s island and the beautiful nymph keeps him prisoner in her bed for seven long years. Here pain is mixed with pleasure and pleasure turns into constant tears, that Ulysses sheds by day while sitting at the island’s rocky shoreline.

This powerlessness and this imprisonment very often rise from an incestuous attachment to the mother and from the decision to be subjugated by her needs in exchange for her love.

The sixth encounter comes about in the palace at Ithaca, where more than one hundred Suitors have Penelope under siege, passing the time stuffing themselves, devouring Ulysses’ goods and planning both his and Telemachus’ death.

Here Ulysses gradually builds his personal power as he goes through the most intense humiliations, and finally, with the help of Athena, his son Telemachus, the swineherd Eumaeus and the cow-herder Philoetius, he can completely destroy the devouring mother’s horde, represented so well by the Suitors.

CHAPTER XXXVII
THE SUITORS

Homer speaks at length about the Suitors right at the beginning of the poem (Od. I and II).
What he says is that they have an arrogant heart (Od. I, 103).
This description is the most concise and the best that Homer offers all throughout the poem.

During modern times there are many people with an arrogant heart and so I decided to describe them in a decalogue that was the central theme of an international congress held by the Sophia University of Rome in Belgium, 1995.

DECALOG – A PORTRAIT OF MODERN MAN

or ten points to reflect on to understand better what exactly the existential lie is, that we live inside of like
so many fish in water.

1) I am an Absolute and everyone must bow down before me and adore me as if I were a God.

 

Whoever dares to oppose me will be crushed like a worm.

2) Truth is based on whatever I think and whatever I feel. I never lie; I am the Truth. Others are always at fault. I will never budge one inch from my point of view. Those who do not offer me recognition do not have the right to exist. I don’t have to recognize anyone else. I am entitled to everything.

3) I am innocent, actually I am an innocent victim; the others are always guilty. I don’t want them to live and I will kill them with the poison of my hatred and my disdain.
I am Right and I am always in the right. Whoever dares to cross me will pay dearly for it into eternity.
There is no way that any reparation can satisfy me.

4) Only my will must be done and whoever is not willing to bend to it will be eliminated forever.
My weapons? Seduction, phallic power, blackmail and threats.

5) Only I exist and everyone else is at my service. Whoever rebels against me and does not want to serve me shall be condemned to hell. My needs and my projections always come first!
The others are my rug and I am a bulldozer.

6) Everything that exists is mine. I steal whatever does not belong to me and if I cannot steal it, I destroy it or I break it.
Nothing can cure my envy.
Nothing can satiate my greed and voracity.

7) I am the law. There is no law above me.
I dictate the rules of the game and I change them when I feel like it. I am power. There is no power greater than mine.
Everyone must obey me; I don’t have to obey anyone.

8) I am pure, I am a saint and my saintliness is everywhere. My honorability is my highest value. The unconscious? I don’t have one. The others have one, of course, and theirs are full of hatred and evil.
If they do not publicly confess their guilt, I will punish them with universal judgment.
I am the strongest, so says the penal code.

9) I am always perfect. I don’t have to correct anything about myself. I don’t have improve in any way.
I don’t ever have to apologize; I don’t have to ask anyone’s forgiveness for anything.

10) I don’t want to die. I cannot die. I am Eternal. I will nurture my eternity by killing off the others.

 

(see A.M. “La nascita della cosmo-art” {The Birth of Cosmo-Art}, pgs 47-48).

 

I already spoke of the existential lie in previous pages, but here I would like to add some further reflections.

 

THE EXISTENTIAL LIE

 

“The existential lie is a lie that people tell themselves without knowing that they are lying.

It is a lie with which a person denies the truth and denies the reality principle and instead creates a mask, or a cocoon. This way they can defend themselves from the pain that this causes inside themselves, and the name they give the mask is absolute truth.

It is the lie that humans use to deny the existence of their dark sides, their weaknesses and vices or, as Jung would say, of their Shadow. They become anchored in a false self (Winnicott) and an ideal of perfection that is flawless, through their pride and their arrogant demands.

The existential lie serves to defend oneself from the truth and from the anguish of dying, but it also serves to be able to impose on others one’s will to dominate.

It especially serves to affirm one’s refusal to be born and to pass from the stage of the fetal I to the stage of the adult I . When one is immersed in the existential lie it is as if they were never born.

Now if we think about it, life asks human beings to be born at least three times. The first is our biological birth.
The second is the birth of the reality principle.
The third is the birth of the principle of truth and the principle of responsibility. As far as biological birth goes, modern medicine has made sufficient progress

to be able to assure this for many, lowering the number of infantile deaths to a minimum.

As far as the second and third births go, in my opinion there is not yet a science that is sufficiently developed to assure that many will be born. This is true because for these births it is not only a question of science but of science and art”.

(see A.M. “La nascita della cosmo-art” {The Birth of Cosmo-Art} , pgs. 45-46).

 

In the introduction to the Group Laboratory of Existential Anthropology of the Sophia University of Rome (S.U.R.) on 13-14 May, 1995, I wrote:

“If we define the existential lie as a partial truth that is rendered absolute by the megalomanic I , it is the job of the I Person to ask itself what exactly its absolute truths are, and how a truth can become a lie as soon as it is isolated from the principle of reality or it is thought of and affirmed in contraposition to the principle of reality.

The pleasure principle says: only I exist and everyone else only exists to serve me. And it is well known that the pleasure principle accepts the principle of reality only when it is forced to.

Another important reflection must be added, which regards the coexistence and the predominance of the fetal I over the adult I. I am speaking of the fetal I and not the infantile I ; I am referring to that I that developed in the maternal womb, during the nine months of intrauterine life and that, because of the trauma it experienced there, has no intention of leaving the uterus even many years after biological birth.

The principle of reality of the fetal I does not at all correspond to the principle of reality of the adult I .

For the fetal I the only reality that counts is its survival and wellbeing. All the rest is not real and, if it is, it is only in relation to the type of damage and offense that it did to the fetal I’s ideal of perfection.

This I that necessarily develops as one that is wounded and offended, due to the fact that it develops in a uterus that is polluted and lacking, like that of most women today in this particular historical moment, knows only one reality and one truth: the infinite, arrogant demand that its wound be recognized and at the same time the refusal to accept any type of reparation for its wounds. This is because in this situation the pleasure principle obtains satisfaction only by getting revenge, that it will carry on for its whole life.

The fetal I is not interested in the type of pleasure it would get should its wound be repaired, nor does it care about the pleasure and joy it could experience by developing its own creative, transformative power.

The first existential lie is established here, and from this point on it expands and pollutes every relationship between individuals and entire populaces.

To act on this lie and dismantle it means deciding to be born, to grow up and enter into the adult world; it means deciding to be born into the full dimension of human beings as Persons, as beings that belong to a cosmic reality and not just a fetal one.

It means deciding to be born to one’s own artistic, creative power and decide to abandon the eternal victim role that is happy only with sadomasochistic pleasure and never with the joy of creating.

It means deciding to choose truth and beauty, instead of lies and ugliness”.

 

(see A.M. “La nascita della cosmo-art” {The Birth of Cosmo-Art} pg. 31).
Explanations on the Decalogue given during the Laboratory activities.

 

“In Greece, the philosophical schools of thought initially looked at the problem of truth and falsity.

 

Very quickly some began saying that there is no truth, like the skeptics, the followers of Pyrrho.

This affirmation ass then taken up by the Sophists, who demonstrated that any proposition, any affirmation, can be demonstrated as being both true and false at the same time, thus any type of objective truth does not exist.

Then Aristotle and Plato came along and said: truth exists.

Plato found it in the ideas found in the Hyperuranium, then he looks at the problem of how the limits of the senses can be overcome so as to reach this truth that is found in ideas. Thus truth is found in ideas but unfortunately we are souls trapped in our bodies and our bodies have senses, and through our senses we always end up seeing things in a confused way.

Remember the story of the cave? Plato says: take a man who is in a cave and who is looking at the inner wall of the cave; various figures pass outside the cave and a light projects these shadows on the cave’s far wall. The man sees the projection but he can’t see anything else because his shoulders are turned towards the cave’s opening. He sees nothing that actually happens at the entrance, he only sees the reflection of it projected on the wall of the cave. This is because of our senses. Thus humanity can only have an approximate knowledge of truth. We can never truly grasp true and certain knowledge of truth, unless we get rid of our body and manage to reach the level of ideas. Only if this is accomplished can we hope to reach the truth.

Then along came Aristotle, who introduced the principle of non-contradiction. If A is A it cannot be B ; in other words, if an affirmation is shown to be true it cannot be false, and if an affirmation is false it cannot be true. However, what is established with certainty is that on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction a truth does exist, and the whole problem resides in demonstrating whether an affirmation is either true or false. If it is true it must be preserved, if it is false it must be eliminated.

Socrates introduces humility for the first time in the history of Western thought, that he masterfully expresses in the phrase: “I know that I don’t know”.

What is Socrates affirming with this phrase? That at least one certain truth exists. He knows he doesn’t know. If he sets out to search for truth, either alone or with others, he and the others can reach some kind of truth. This phrase contains above all another truth: if he, Socrates, manages to dismantle the prejudices of the person he is talking to, prejudices that are taken as being truths, then later Socrates can find a truth together with those who have accepted to allow that their prejudices be dismantled.

The position of the skeptics has been revisited during modern times by positivist and relativist philosophers. For them relative truths exist and these truths are so relative that again they end up reaching the conclusion that no truth exists.

Socrates’ position was instead revisited by Karl Popper, who strongly adheres to Socratic thinking and invites all thinkers, both philosophers and scientists, to become humble in their thinking and their actions and to not assume absolute positions. This is where the novelty lies, in him inviting thinkers to realize that neither the truth that has been found nor an ascertained demonstration of falsity should be rendered absolutes.

Popper is also important because he introduces the concept of existential life history and he asks: should we be pessimists or optimists? Clearly if there is an annihilistic approach at the basis of our thinking, where no objective truth exists, then we have to be pessimists; if, instead, we can reach some sort of truth, then we can be optimistic.

What am I asking you to do here, in practical terms? First of all, I am asking you to put aside your skepticism: there are certainly truths that can be reached and it is not necessary to leave one’s body to reach them. Also, in contrast to Aristotle’s thought, an affirmation can contain both a truth and a lie, because this is what happens over and over again in relationships and in the context of scientific research as well (for example, Newtonian mechanics is true on one level of reality and it is false on another level, as has been demonstrated by quantum mechanics).

The existential lie, which is what we are focusing on in this laboratory, is different from falsity, because it is a description of a partial reality with an attempt to make it an absolute, while falsity is an affirmation that concerns a reality considered in its totality.

If I say that a certain proposition is a lie, and I am referring to an existential lie, it means that the proposition is partially true and partially false. We can see that in this case I am putting aside the principle of non-contradiction formulated by Aristotle, because according to him if a proposition is true it cannot be false and if it is false it cannot be true. But he did not make any distinction between lie and falsity.

Another element I wanted to offer you is to discover the importance that all this has in our daily lives and in our relationships. Because if what I think and feel is true, and I demand that this is an absolute truth, this fact will have a negative connotation if I enter into conflict with someone or if I am feeling conflict within myself.

Let’s look at conflict with another person. If I am in conflict with someone and I think that what I am feeling is true, and I demand that it be taken as an absolute truth, it is impossible that what the other is thinking and feeling can be just as true. Is this logical? And so it is impossible to arrive at a solution to the conflict, because the contraposition will be there forever, since each person considers their own truth an absolute. Whatever each is thinking and feeling in that moment is the only truth. This means remaining in the context of a subjective truth, that can never be confronted with the truth of another, it can never reach a level of objective truth.

At this point we must add that besides having understood that the first characteristic of a lie is its becoming an absolute, “whatever I think and whatever I feel is true” and “it is absolutely true”, there are other questions that must be asked.

Another question we could formulate might be: “Whatever I think and whatever I feel is true”; but which I am I talking about? Is there a single I within us? At a very bare minimum we can say that there is a fetal I and an adult I ; so, if I don’t ask myself which I is coming into play in the moment it is thinking and feeling, I cannot understand what type of truth I am talking about. The truth that concerns the fetal I is different than the one concerns the a post-fetal objective truth. Only the I exists in the womb. What about the mother? If I want to I can deny her and decide that she does not exist; only I exist in all my omnipotence. But within objective reality, there is an I and there are others. I can, of course, deny that others exist just as I have done with my mother, but this does not mean that the others don’t really exist.

Someone stated it very clearly by asking: and if I am overtaken by a projection? … which I is acting during a situation like that? A projection can also have its beginnings during intrauterine life, and so it is the fetal I that kicks into action. I have no awareness of this fetal I so how can I affirm that this is the truth? Which I expressed the truth? That which is true for the Psychological I can be false for the I Person. Which of the two will I listen to?

If I want to be able to express an objective truth it is obligatory to pass from the fetal I to the adult I .

 

Yesterday you had quite some difficulty with what you did and why is that? I believe that the reason for this is because of the predominance of the fetal I.

The fetal I believes that only he exists and the mother only exists in the distance. Essentially, the only thing that exists is the fetal I. If the mother does exist she is there only to be at his service. This is one way we can take the experience of the fetal I and bring it into our daily experience; as long as the fetal I prevails, I will never be able to welcome anyone else’s existence, unless they are at my service.

There is another problem within the human being and this is the drive for power. Again, when I ask what the I is thinking and feeling, I can ask: is this the adult I that is thinking and feeling or is it the fetal I ? Is this the Psychological I, the I Person , or maybe the SELF? And now I can also ask: is it perhaps the megalomanic phallic I , that always wants to impose its power and its will on others? If this is the case, how can I know that I am within the context of the truth? It is not an easy thing to free ourselves of the need to wield power over others: it requires continuous practice and the ability to face a real crisis and make some real changes to decide to stop acting on our will to have power over and dominate others.

We all know how the I considers itself an absolute and how it wants to absolutely dominate life and others, how it wants that life and others to do exactly as it wants, as it demands. It is difficult but we must do it, we must try to free ourselves of an absolute I ; otherwise we can forget about truth and the ability to reach objective truth.

Another question arises that I amply described in the first chapters of the book “La vie comme oeuvre d’art” {Life as a Work of Art} : if I am full of hatred, even if I am not completely so but only in part, this hatred originated in my intrauterine experience, this hatred pollutes my being and since actions follow being , if I have repressed hatred within me that I am unaware of, when I think I will inevitably think with hatred and not with love. We could say that this is the most immediate and destructive result. Then, since I am not centered only on hatred but also on love, I can also think with love. But if the most immediate thing I am carrying inside is repressed hatred, I will inevitably think with hatred and not with love. And by thinking with hatred, what I am thinking is a truth that is interlaced with a lie, because hatred immediately transforms truth into a lie.

An excellent example of this type of truth that is transformed into a lie can be seen in how Oedipus forces his mother to face the truth and wants her to necessarily face it in the way he is facing it, that is with hatred. The consequence is that his mother hangs herself: this is what Oedipus wanted, but he was unaware of it.

Oedipus hated his mother and he wanted her to hang herself and how did he manage to force her to do so? By using truth, not by using a lie. In those moments he is thinking with hatred, he is not thinking with love, neither towards himself nor towards his mother.

The solution that I have found is that only by using the power of reason, not rationalization, but reason, can we discover our repressed hatred that we have been carrying since our intrauterine experience, the pre-Oedipal phase and the Oedipal phase. By using reason I can discover my repressed hatred. Without reason repressed hatred cannot be discovered, because repressed hatred does not have access to our sense perception. I cannot feel repressed hatred. Why can’t I feel it? Because I did everything possible to repress and deny it, otherwise I would have never survived during intrauterine life. If I have thus done everything possible to not feel it, how could I possibly feel it now? Are you following me here?

It is obvious, then, that when I think and feel, I will think and feel everything except hatred; I will feel my wounds, I will feel the injustice that has been done to me, I will feel my arrogant demands perhaps, but I will definitely not feel hatred, because I have erected a cement wall between myself and my hatred. I have done so because if I hadn’t I would have never survived during prenatal life, during the pre-Oedipal phase or during the Oedipal phase.

If I use reason to examine my actions or the actions of others and reflect on them, then I can use reason to also discover my repressed hatred within. Then I can decide to do something to see it and eliminate it.

Let’s return now to the question about what the relationship is between the I and the SELF . If I have established a healthy relationship with my SELF , then I can have faith that at the moment I come into contact with my hatred, I can accept myself without killing myself because I am so full of hatred. One possibility to use reason and discover whether or not there is repressed hatred within me is to look at whether there is an internal I Persecutor as well as an external one.

The internal I Persecutor is created on one hand by the I Person that splits off from that part of itself that is the cause of hatred and it transforms itself into an implacable judge towards the same I Person: you have repressed hatred within you, thus you are guilty, thus I have to punish you. Instead, the SELF’s way of acting in regards to guilt is completely opposite from the way the