To Find My Inner Hero

   There exists this continuity of death and rebirth within each individual, which is essential to the personal quest. It is difficult to discover the hero of our own personal quests, but imperative that we do. We learn through the experiences during our personalized cycles; the unity between our hero-self and ‘god-self’ further develops, growing, improving our reality. The Monomyth is a forever repeating cycle, and as Campbell wrote:

 The two- the hero and his ultimate god, the seeker and the found- are thus understood as the outside and the inside of a single, self-mirrored mystery, which is identical with the mystery of the manifest world. The great deed of the supreme hero is to come to the knowledge of this unity in multiplicity and then to make it known.

    This excerpt from Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces captures the essence of the Monomyth as it pertains to the everyday human’s journey through life. Stories told by our ancestors around fires, myths passed down from grandparent to grandchild, and even modern popular literature tend to focus around the same familiar archetype of a hero’s grandeur quest. In rare cases are these hero-characters made relatable: with their royal or fortunate upbringing, magical encounters and fantastically unbelievable adventures. However, Campbell’s legendary research, and subsequent literary works, indicate the popularity of the Monomyth where each experiences their own quest, with at least one call to action, or adventure. 

   We all wonder about the world and our place or role within it, but it is an incredible thing to realize that we each undergo an amazing, personal transformation guided by a series of quests. 

     In one of the very first transcribed stories of the quest, Gilgamesh, we are shown the value and importance of finding balance between being civilized versus being beastly. In a society, we are taught that being civilized is most appropriate and acceptable behavior, yet we are born with an innate animalistic sense; such beastly instincts are squandered by the teachings of being civilized, paired with basic needs satisfied. This animalistic characteristic of the human being craves nature, or natural environments, and is intrinsically innocent. While the learned civilized behavior demonstrates enlightenment, when one’s animalistic instincts intermingle, we get beastly traits such as cruelty, arrogance, and oppression. Such is the case with Gilgamesh, particularly at the start of his quest’s journey:

     Those who are in positions of high power are particularly susceptible of falling prey to these negative qualities, and Gilgamesh was a king with two-thirds divinity. He maintained a very high opinion of himself, and thought he was the mightiest who ever lived. Gilgamesh was greedy and worried that other city-states would take what he had built and claimed, all at the cost of the well-being of those he governed.

     Gilgamesh was extremely civilized that in a sense, he was disconnected from the reality around him and lost touch with the humanity that afforded him his lifestyle. Enter his divine intervention from brother Enkidu- Enkidu is so natural yet animalistic that he is fundamentally good and knows no evil, concerned only with survival of himself and the natural world around him. He reminds us, and his brother Gilgamesh, of right from wrong, good versus evil. Enkidu also manages to teach Gilgamesh that he is not as all-mighty as he boasts; that Gilgamesh has an equal to challenge him and his decisions. However, the biggest lesson that Enkidu taught Gilgamesh was his mortality, and therefore the value of life.

When Enkidu is sentenced to death via illness from divine intervention, Gilgamesh realizes that he is not immortal, or exempt from death, if even his purely divine brother can die. This unleashes a devout mission to find immortality, leading Gilgamesh into many calls of action, nearly excepting defeat, but finally realizes that his accomplishments as a powerful king directly lead to his legacy, which will survive longer than any human being.

This passage from Gilgamesh really hit me. On a personal level, I can never be content in life knowing that we will all die, be forgotten, and nothing will have mattered. I could be the Queen of the greatest civilization, a little girl who only ever lived on a rural farm, a struggling artist on the streets of Los Angles, or the owner of a great Fortune 500 company: In the end, I will die and it was all just meaningless. In this moment of Gilgamesh’s defeat, I think he feels this similar dissonance, which is a common philosophical issue we struggle with when contemplating the meaning of life. Personally, I would never wish to be immortal, but leaving behind some sort of accomplishment or legacy is perhaps my life’s work. The many pivots in my life thus far illustrate my need to create something that will outlast my physical body- my collective journey seeks lasting immortality in the form of accomplishments and legacy.

     Although Gilgamesh is civilized, at his core he is beastly, just as we all are innately. In the classic tale of Gilgamesh, these opposing yet complementary traits are manifested into two distinct characters, the divine brothers; for the individual, this balance is a personal struggle each must endure. This balance and contrast between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, between right from wrong, good vs evil, reminds me of the concept of yin-and-yang:

“The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other and, as their symbol illustrates, each side has at its core an element of the other (represented by the small dots). Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony,” (Cartwright, ancient.eu).

 I often toil with the concept of evil and what is ‘good’. What does it mean to do or be good? What does the word actually mean? Can good be an intrinsic value of something or is it assigned? We all strive to do and be good, but isn’t this subjective? On the other hand, evil or ‘bad’ is a more easily understood. Bad has an identifiable concrete archetype; if someone harms another for any reason, it is understood that that is bad. There are varying levels of what could be considered bad: lying, cheating, steeling, deceiving, hurting, etc.; nevertheless, still understood to have a negative association. Yet, our innate survival instincts advocate for self-preservation, and this often leads an individual to do something inherently bad. This gets rationalized as a necessary action or behavior, and therefore not consciously considered bad; but when this accumulates over time, like generations of time, bad behavior gets normalized and is more acceptable in society. Thus, the cycle continues and enforces this beastly component of the civilized one. This leads me to question internally: Am I a good person? Do I do more ‘evil’ than ‘good’ or is it a necessary evil? Could I work to become a better, civilized person? Can a person learn or train to be good?

     When I was younger, particularly in my prime teenage years, too often I dwelled on the past. I would replay and recall interactions, conversations, public settings, scenes, etc. to interpret meaning outside of my purely subjective point of view. I couldn’t help it- it seemed like everything wound up with a negative outcome, and I figured there must have been some missed signals. I can get myself down a deep hole going over and over a moment, or memory, and usually this downward spiral involves me obsessing over something inherently or ultimately negative. The world is confusing- especially when growing up and trying to figure out the basics- let alone planning for our particular journey, complete with experiences that will aid in our personal development. As I’ve gotten older, though, I have trained myself to dwell less on the past so that I can focus on the present and plan for the future. This practice of avoiding my past was useful for my emotional survival during my teenage years, but now in my early adolescence, I yearn for the ease of recalling my previous experiences in order to gain a better understanding of who and why I am.

This excerpt comes from March 18, 2013:

Well now I was completely caught up on trying to figure out my internal struggle, and in thinking deeply about this, I could physically feel my mind expanding outward or sort of lifting higher. Thoughts were flowing into me so nicely and I was able to better understand my situation. Not ever considering my bad side gone made me wonder; is my good side absolutely necessary? And the answer was so simple; yes. It MUST be; I could never get rid of this bad side-it is the equalizer of human rationality. If I reference my mini legal pad of my first documentation of my internal struggle, I can easily understand that my good side corresponds to absolute knowledge and fate and unearthly relations; while my bad side corresponds to emotions, desires, and all that keeps me in touch with this physical world. I undeniably live in this physical world, so my bad side is absolutely necessary and actually works in conjunction with my good side. My good side thrives off my bad side and all that it contains; as if it were food for my good side. This is comprehensible in the case of knowledge; I could not learn, nor even have anything to learn about, without the physical world and my experiences within it. When I learn something, it brings about the good side, but the bad side must be actively present in order for my good side to thrive. To me, the yin and yang symbol is very relevant in relating this theory of self… Instead of wanting to get rid of the bad, I need to understand it and control its unhealthy impulses to maximize my ‘good’ potential. How can I do this?

Take a moment and watch this excellent Saudi Arabian foreign (Oscar nominated!), independently financed, satirical comedy “Barakah Meets Barakah” from debuting writer-director Mahmoud Sabbagh. It is a smart, charming, and bittersweet tale about the Kingdom’s millennial generation and their take on the social and political restrictions that stand in the way of meeting and mingling with the opposite sex. 

     Modern relationships are less about marriage than they have been in the past- many of those in younger generations experience hostile, broken families or have seen, or at least heard of, the nuisance of divorce. 

     More popular, it seems that couples are opting-in for living together, as one of THE major steps of a serious relationship, rather than getting married. Some even have kids and start a family before marriage, if they will even marry at all. To generations as young as say the baby boomer generation, this is taboo and frankly inappropriate behavior for couples. 

     These older generations, and cultures with ‘traditional’ values, can have such strong opinions of the ideal relationship that they govern and dictate the nature of relationships, such as that witnessed by the religious police in the film “Barakah Meets Barakah.” It is common for certain cultures to have specific guidelines, rules or laws about marriage. However, it seems that as generations age, they are questioning these traditional standards of society and finding love in their own way, and on their own terms.

     A common critique or complaint about marriage heard from the male perspective is the extra burden typically associated with marriage and family. Perhaps modern men don’t desire to wed due to the financial stress typically placed on the male figure in the household- and this causes a lot of pressure for that individual- but marriage provides insurance and a sense of security for both.

     Relationships require compromise for the sacrifices one makes in their life in order to support a new life built together in a long-term, serious relationship. However, it is unrealistic to expect either partner to solely bare the financial responsibility or for the insurance for the one’s sacrifice anymore. With prenups, divorces, affairs, and common white collar crimes- a marriage hardly carries the same significance as before. 

     Presently, women have more opportunity then ever before, taking on a large portion of the workforce, and choosing to save families for later on in life, if at all. The benefits of marriage don’t seem as great for either side and are therefore on the decline. While there are many reasons why the idea of marriage is trending out of style, I believe that it still has its place in modern cultures for those with some traditional values.

Taking a look at my life, I have a really great, loving relationship with someone I’ve known (first as friends, and at times as a crush) for over seven years yet we’ve only been dating romantically for just shy of two years. We moved across the country and into an apartment together, from AZ to OH, after just five months of dating. 

Of course, this wasn’t a ‘normal’ step in a relationship, but it was right for us. Though this past year living in Ohio together has had its ups and downs, we were forced to address and work on our issues- we might have broken up and not dealt with things if we weren’t living together in a brand new city- but we do and so we take the time to work things out and build a stronger bond. 

I believe that what we’ve been through is very common and is part of the process of growing a relationship; but this would all traditionally take place after a marriage, sometimes even post kids. I think waiting to build this necessary bond until after marriage or waiting to address issues and work on creating a healthy, strong relationship, can be detrimental. 

The fact is that people change, especially in early adulthood, and if a couple doesn’t grow together, they’ll grow apart and drift away emotionally. 

I still see this with couples my age who marry someone they were smitten with after a relatively short period of time, and when the fantasy fades, and both realize that their lives have been forever altered and conjoined, they often can’t cope and this leads to a breaking point in the young marriage.