Terminal Dogma: Essays on Neon Genesis Evangelion

[kaos]

From http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=9591


Brian Ruh, author of Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii and the maintainer of Anime Research (http://www.animeresearch.com/) has announced an upcoming tome of essays dealing with Neon Genesis Evangelion, tentatively titled Terminal Dogma: Essays on Neon Genesis Evangelion.

The volume, edited and compiled by Brian Ruh, will focus not only on the show itself, but also how Evangelions has been discussed, marketed, and understood. Another purpose of the volume is to foster dialogue between academics studying anime and anime fans. As such, Ruh is requesting essay submissions not only from academics, but from anime fans as well.


Aspects covered by the chapters could include (but are certainly not
limited to):

Psychoanalysis and Evangelion
Narrative structures of the TV series / films
The reception of Evangelion (both in Japan and in other countries)
Evangelion on DVD
The merchandising of Evangelion
Evangelion manga
Evangelion video games
The role of Evangelion in anime canon formation
Evangelion in the context of Hideaki Anno’s / Gainax’s other works
Evangelion’s references to previous anime
Music in Evangelion
Evangelion fanfiction / doujinshi
Animators / animation techniques in Evangelion
Evangelion fandom / websites / shrines
Language use / translating Evangelion

Final essays will be around 5000 words. Please send proposals of 500-700 words or completed essays as well as a brief CV / personal bio to the editor at evabook[at]gmail.com
Deadline: December 31, 2006
I'm guessing that some people around here could make some good sumbissions. Any takers?

[Reichu]

For some reason, the concept of writing essays for a tome edited by some guy I've never heard of, slated for actual Dead Tree publication, and intended to have academic applications terrifies me. (And in terms of CVs, I'm an unqualified nobody.)

[CanonRAP]

Why is a CV or bio needed? To prove that you can be trusted on your written work?

Does being an anime/NGE fan automatically make you smart now?

[Reichu]

Why is a CV or bio needed? To prove that you can be trusted on your written work?

Does being an anime/NGE fan automatically make you smart now?
Given the academic slant, having fancy pieces of paper to wave around would probably increase one's chances of getting published in this thing...

I'm already seeing Sean McCoy lining up for the psychoanalysis essay.

[Hexon.Arq]

I'm already seeing Sean McCoy lining up for the psychoanalysis essay.

And being included. :crybaby:

Given the academic slant, having fancy pieces of paper to wave around would probably increase one's chances of getting published in this thing...

Of course, but imagining widely increased odds assumes he'll receive enough essays from acadamia to edge out all the nobodies. How many will be enough? And what is fancy? Intelligible?

[CanonRAP]

Does anyone get a weird feeling that this will become NGE-Wiki 2.0?

[Leader Desslock]

I think that anyone who doesn't contribute an essay (accepted or not) to the project voids all right to criticize or ridicule it when it's finally released.

[Reichu]

Of course, but imagining widely increased odds assumes he'll receive enough essays from acadamia to edge out all the nobodies. How many will be enough? And what is fancy? Intelligible?
Ah, by "fancy pieces of paper", I was referring to credentials. (Like those various certificates printed on parchment, with some embossing, and calligraphy, and one's name proudly displayed in the middle.)

I think that anyone who doesn't contribute an essay (accepted or not) to the project voids all right to criticize or ridicule it when it's finally released.
True enough. I don't have any excuses not to send something in.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

I sent in a huge thing about why I hate Evangelion.
Then I included a picture of Ideon on a surfboard doing the hang loose sign.

[Dan]

Im surprised no one is considering answering this challenge. Or at least claiming they will, however full of hot air they really might be.

I'm seriously thinking about it, and the possibility of publication is a huge motivation. Not sure which aspect of the list I should focus on, the majority of submissions will probably be on phychoanalysis, which I wouldn't even want to approach.

I'll let you guys know if it happens.

[Magami No ER]

Good for you Dan^^
I could never myself, any "insight" I may be able to spew would be mild comapred to someone a bit more "with it" in this field of sorts.

[Reichu]

Im surprised no one is considering answering this challenge.
One of the people who is got banninated. As for the rest, perhaps they simply do not feel like declaring it to the world in a loud, booming voice.

Naturally, I'll hate myself forever if I don't try.

[CanonRAP]

As for the rest, perhaps they simply do not feel like declaring it to the world in a loud, booming voice.

I feel fine declaring myself in a small voice to my own little corner of the world. I don't expect NGE to have an enormous jump in popularity just because a giant tome about it suddenly show up in bookstores.

[Dan]

I feel fine declaring myself in a small voice to my own little corner of the world. I don't expect NGE to have an enormous jump in popularity just because a giant tome about it suddenly show up in bookstores.

I dont think popularity is the point. Actually the reason I'm interested in this is because it looks like its targeted for academic essays, not just plot comprehension like most of the fan community centers on.

[CanonRAP]

I dont think popularity is the point. Actually the reason I'm interested in this is because it looks like its targeted for academic essays, not just plot comprehension like most of the fan community centers on.

No no, I realise that, I was just saying that as an aside. My point was that I prefer 'going nameless'.

[aaronc1]

One of the people who is got banninated.O RLY? And who would that be?

I've already had several topics approved, and I've sent in a 1000 word introduction to one article. I've started outlining my second article, hopefully that will be done by the end of the week and I'll have received a critique on my first entry so I can revise and extend into the main body of the article.

I'm going gung ho on this. I expect to write at least one article for this book. But in total I'm planning four.

Ideally, I expect to have four full length articles finalized by the approval deadline. If any of them get cut, I can just publish them online.

[Reichu]

O RLY? And who would that be?
Not you, of course. :shifty:

I should write that guy sometime soon. What exactly is December the deadline for...?

[aaronc1]

December 31st would be the deadline for proposals. Not complete articles. Although I imagine that the further developed the article the better.

[Quiddity]

Very interesting, perhaps I'll submit something myself (already have plenty of stuff on Eva Monkey's site :P). An article on Eva's influences would definately be something interesting to write about, especially if it gives such shows more exposure.

[aaronc1]

Very interesting, perhaps I'll submit something myself (already have plenty of stuff on Eva Monkey's site :P). An article on Eva's influences would definately be something interesting to write about, especially if it gives such shows more exposure.That would certainly be interesting to do. Not only what influenced Evangelion, but what it in turn influenced. You can also adress the issues of creativity of narrative works. There is that huge argument of creativity and originality. I would very much like to see you restructure your arguments in your previous writings into a larger article. It would be a must for the volume.

[Magami No ER]

Any of your (general term here) works being accpeted would certainly make this thing worth reading for me, personally.

[Ornette]

Any of your (general term here) works being accpeted would certainly make this thing worth reading for me, personally.
agreed++

..

[Dr. Nick]

I think that anyone who doesn't contribute an essay (accepted or not) to the project voids all right to criticize or ridicule it when it's finally released.

I wonder, does the system really work that way? For example, literary critics bash all kinds of anthologies without even trying to submit their own writings to them. Or is this a faulty comparison?

But this is not to say I don't like the idea: I'm a little skeptical towards the outcome, but I still believe most of the texts will be worthwhile to read. 70% of good stuff and 30% of dennisredmondisms would be a good result, IMO.

Personally, I'd love to see some essays concerning the following topics:
- The final two episodes: what caused them to become what they are? (compiling all the known facts in one neat package)
- Making Stuff Up: misinformation and Evangelion fandom (multiple different approaches are possible here)
- Cultists and Space Aliens, or your standard sci-fi plot devices at work (this or course shares ground with the whole "influences to and from" topic)

Dunno how "academically-worthy" these ideas are, though...

[CanonRAP]

Personally, I'd love to see some essays concerning the following topics:
- The final two episodes: what caused them to become what they are? (compiling all the known facts in one neat package)
- Making Stuff Up: misinformation and Evangelion fandom (multiple different approaches are possible here)
- Cultists and Space Aliens, or your standard sci-fi plot devices at work (this or course shares ground with the whole "influences to and from" topic)

Protoculture, Interventionism!

[/filler]

[Reichu]

- Cultists and Space Aliens, or your standard sci-fi plot devices at work (this or course shares ground with the whole "influences to and from" topic)
Cripes, that's essentially what I jabbered about at Otakon '06, right there. (But without the 'influences' stuff, because I don't watch anything.)

[Quiddity]

That would certainly be interesting to do. Not only what influenced Evangelion, but what it in turn influenced. You can also adress the issues of creativity of narrative works. There is that huge argument of creativity and originality. I would very much like to see you restructure your arguments in your previous writings into a larger article. It would be a must for the volume.

Indeed. Thanks for the encouragement. The way I see it, the way I'd like to tackle things is to take a detailed look at what influences structured Eva, how they influenced it, and how that led to its success. Then turn around and discuss Eva's impact on those that came after it, not so much conceptually (because as all should know, I largely disagree with the extent of Eva's conceptual influence on other shows), but its impact of 'opening up the field' to more shows of the same genre to successfully tackle more mature areas. And I can't leave out the whole censorship atmosphere that it created. :P

[MDWigs]

My original analysis of the concurrent nature of the endings comes in at about 3500 words. Perhaps it is time to revise it? ^_^

Hello everyone. I am back lurking these forums after reading the news of the new Eva project. Life is as hectic as always, but you may actually see my post from time to time!

[Sharp-kun]

Maybe time for me to come out of lurkdom....?

[Crazy Penguin]

Holy crap you're alive!

[HeWhoPostsStuff]

I can almost hear the "Wiiiise frum you gwaaave!" guy from Altered Beast...

[Reichu]

Hello everyone. I am back lurking these forums after reading the news of the new Eva project. Life is as hectic as always
That's alright -- nothing much is happening here. (Monkey's board is getting way more action.) Nice to see you're alive, compadre!

Regarding the new project -- just between me and the Internets, I'm http://www.evacommentary.org/forums/images/smiles/ehh.gif.

But I have better things to fret over. Like old, neglected projects. ;)

[Quiddity]

Working on my 'eva influences' essay, maybe you guys can help me with a few things...

-Any thought out there whether the use of classical music in Eva (Beethoven's Ode to Joy or whatever its official name is, Bach's Air II, etc...) was influenced by 2001 A Space Odyssey's similar usage of well known classical music? I'm not aware of any anime influences for this, but with the usage of the monoliths in Eva as obviously from 2001, was thinking whether this was another possible influence.

-Any info out there on whether Gainax's non-Gunbuster earlier works had influence on Eva? Like Nadia, Wings of Honneimise, etc...?

Thanks!

[Reichu]

-Any info out there on whether Gainax's non-Gunbuster earlier works had influence on Eva? Like Nadia, Wings of Honneimise, etc...?
Uhhhh... Sadamoto based Shinji's design on Nadia.

From what I'm aware, there is, at least, a lot of Nadia in NGE. The best way to find out would be to watch it (which I've yet to do).

[Magami No ER]

I have, ('twas an excellent series), and I certainly noticed many visual cues both in various scenes, gianax re-used sound FX, and character designs besides Nadia(especially with regards to Ntsobw's own rather creepy...ish scenes toward the ending of the story, one in which even Eva-02 post...harpized...came to my mind.
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9186/nadia20jean20marie20e20px5.th.jpg (http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nadia20jean20marie20e20px5. jpg)
(From right to left-Rather like a Shinji mixed with proto-Rei, a chibi proto-Asuka with sort hair, and a Kensuke/Asuka mix. With the token animal. =P)

I remember one character in Ntsobw in particular, Electra, once pulled *spoilers to those who do wish to watch this in the future* out a gun on Captain Nemo, and she looked strikingly like Ritsuko on the DEEP END in EoE. The former's tale ends up much happier though.
And of course, once she sports shorter hair later in the series, she looks like Ritsuko even more so, sans beauty mark.
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8838/menuelectraxm7.jpg
But I'm willing to bet she's a natural blonde.

Hasn't Dr. Nick/someone seen this series...by any chance? I remember someone once making a comment on how Captain Nemo's personality was was altered from the orginal Jules Vernes novel considerably.

[Dr. Nick]

Hasn't Dr. Nick/someone seen this series...by any chance? I remember someone once making a comment on how Captain Nemo's personality was was altered from the orginal Jules Vernes novel considerably.

Thewayneiac made that comment and Shin-seki posted this link:
http://www.thesecretofbluewater.com/

[thewayneiac]

I remember someone once making a comment on how Captain Nemo's personality was was altered from the orginal Jules Vernes novel considerably.


Thewayneiac made that comment and Shin-seki posted this link:
http://www.thesecretofbluewater.com/

Yes, and it's true not only of Nadia, but of every show I've seen with Nemo as a guest character. In the original, he is a villain who seems to have a grudge against the whole world. He goes around in his submarine sinking ships and can only be called a mass murderer. However, for some reason the writers of shows like Nadia always insist on making him into a good guy.

This strange phenomenon is probably akin to the bizarre romanticization of pirates in popular literature & movies. In real life a pirate was the worst thing you could be; they were the terrorists of their time.

But, if it works it works, I suppose. I like Nadia, & I like shows about pirates....

[JFaulkner]

I am not sure why people are building this book up as "academic."

The real interest of Evangelion for me is how it shows the inner psychic realities that we very often choose to neglect, and how facing up to these can be a tortuous experience (which serves as a catalyst for the viewers to get their backsides off their sofas and look at themselves in earnest). For this reason, I think a Jungian framework would be ideal. However, what exactly does Brian Ruh or his editorial helpers know about Jungian psychoanalysis? If it really is to be academic, in a scientific journal sense, then any submissions should be reviewed by a competent reviewer in the field. In the sense of Jungian psychoanalysis and its relation to Evangelion, I am not sure if the expertise in Jung is actually there.

Thus, initially, I was enthusiastic about submitting an essay on what Jung can tell us about the meaning of Evangelion - to the point of taking two evenings off to draw up a 5000+ word framework. But I now have serious misgivings about having work reviewed when the capacity to understand is under a huge question mark. I already work as an "academic researcher," albeit in the "hard" sciences, and know that even reviewers who have expertise in one field have a habit of neglecting work which involves another field (prevalent in inter-disciplinary research), due to a lack of appreciative understanding of the underlying premises and experiences. And given Jung is notoriously prone to being misunderstood, the problem is only exacerbated. I do not have a problem with "defending" my work, but the nature of a submission-review process is that you do not really get that chance.

Therefore, I will still work on this Jung-Evangelion essay, but will not submit it to Brian Ruh. However, I believe this essay, in its current state, already spells out the main ways in which Jung's work can illuminate the meaning of Evangelion - I would be very surprised if any other essay would deviate significantly in this respect. I suppose the non-response of a query I had about essay style sent to Brian by e-mail was also a minor factor.

My original analysis of the concurrent nature of the endings comes in at about 3500 words. Perhaps it is time to revise it? ^_^


I read your argument when you posted it at AnimeBoards (what seems like light years ago), and agree with the overall message that the two endings have the same fundamental meaning. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you have used a primarily linguistic approach, drawing out similarities from passages of speech. This is OK, but I think a more complete approach would also take into account how the symbolism used points towards the same fundamental meaning. This is where Jung can really help. For example, the rebirth theme is evident from both endings (new earth created), and Jung equates the rebirth process to a "psychological enlightenment" - or individuation as he called it. There is little doubt that Shinji achieved a new world perspective in the series ending, but it is less clear he did so in the movie. However, the movie is steeped in symbology reflecting individuation. For example, a familiar Jung motif used to symbolize individuation is that of the divine syzygy, which involves the contrasexual union of two divine figures, one female and one male. This is evidently represented by Kaworu and Rei. Another symbolic theme represented in both series and movie ending is the journey towards an undifferentiated being (Instrumentality/Complementation) and then emerging from this back towards a differentiated state, but with an enlightened view. In Jungian terms, this is the journey into the unconscious, then remerging into consciousness, with a stronger conscious appreciation of the unconscious. The "Good-bye mother" message is again indicative of individuation, because the unconscious is associated with the all-devouring mother, and separation from this is essential to achieve a strong individual will (incest myth-Rei on top of Shinji-Goodbye mother). These are just outlines, and can be fleshed out. [this is just the beginning of what Jung can tell us in the entire series and movie]

Also, just a few other comments: you state that Shinji "rejected complementation" - but is this necessarily the case? If complementation is the mass fusing of souls into an undifferentiated being, then in both series and movie, it has happened. It is a process which has happened, and although Shinji did free himself allegorically from this mass fusion (not fusing, which would imply the process is still going on), can he reject a process which has already happened, and which has had its effects manifested? Could the freeing process be a new process altogether, which comes after complementation (in which case Shinji initiated a new process). This fits into Jung's individuation concept - you must go through the undifferentiated state (unconscious), and then afterwards emerge again - in other words you must accept the effects of complementation, and then a new process kicks in to achieve the re-emergence - those who do not achieve the new process are stuck in the state generated by complementation;

Perhaps there is also a need to address the issue that although the fundamental meaning behind series and movie is the same, there maybe differences on another level. For example, in the movie, Asuka is seen to actively share Shinji's new world (possibly just to get an Adam-Eve motif), whereas in the series ending, she is a passive observer - does this mean that the movie ending explictly shows that Asuka also achieved the same level of enlightenment as Shinji [by the way, Shinji smiling in one ending, and strangling Asuka in the other does not imply a change in the fundamental meaning - Shinji and Asuka in the movie were both confronting the part they hide from others in their unconscious; in Shinji's case, one aspect is the fervent anger directed at Asuka due to her inability to empathize with him, and in Asuka's case, one aspect is the kind feelings she holds for Shinji (this is actually alluded to when Asuka sees Shinji hiding under Kaji, her object of interest on a superficial level); thus, we see those actions temporarily when they were just emerging from their unconscious (this also fits in with Asuka's "How disgusting" being directed at herself) - like waking up from a dream].

That's my two cents anyway, happy to discuss more if you or anyone else wants to.

EDIT: the brackets in the second to last paragraph were in the wrong place - nothing else was changed

[MDWigs]

I read your argument when you posted it at AnimeBoards (what seems like light years ago), and agree with the overall message that the two endings have the same fundamental meaning. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you have used a primarily linguistic approach, drawing out similarities from passages of speech. This is OK, but I think a more complete approach would also take into account how the symbolism used points towards the same fundamental meaning.

It seems like a lifetime ago since I was active on AnimeBoards. I am now not only in a different country, on a different continent, but in a different hemisphere!

With regard to my approach to the analysis of the endings; you are most correct, I did focus primarily on the specifics of the text itself rather than other thematic or symbolic similarities. My reasoning for this is largely based upon the history surrounding this issue, and five years on I think I can be quite candid about it. Though I set out ostensibly to construct an objective, analytical piece, the reality is that I was waging a war of propaganda against EvaOtaku and his (then very widely accepted) view that the endings presented very different conclusions. To this end, I needed an argument that was direct, easily understood, and which left little room for ambiguity. The language used in the series and movies possessed such striking similarities that it seemed sensible to choose it as a basis for my analysis. Looking back now all these years later I think it achieved its objective.

As a complete analytical piece however, I agree it is very narrow in its focus. Perhaps now it is time to expand it to present a more rounded view.

Also, just a few other comments: you state that Shinji "rejected complementation" - but is this necessarily the case? If complementation is the mass fusing of souls into an undifferentiated being, then in both series and movie, it has happened. It is a process which has happened, and although Shinji did free himself allegorically from this mass fusion (not fusing, which would imply the process is still going on), can he reject a process which has already happened, and which has had its effects manifested?

I see complementationin this context as a conclusion, which results in a “TANTAI” or perfect single being, rather than a process. On the road to complementation the barriers between people need to be broken down (i.e. human kind must lose all physical form) and this is implied or directly shown in both endings. However, to quote the End of Evangelion Theatrical Program, ” The objective of the Instrumentality Project was the artificial evolution of humankind into a "perfect single being". This single being means a life form which ends as a single individual, and is used to differentiate from "colony" -- a life form comprised of multiple individuals.”. Shinji specifically rejected this conclusion; he understood his loss of physical form (it had happened to him before). The process itself wasn’t foreign to him (though he may not have understood how or why it was happening), however the result, the dissolution of Shinji’s individuality, was not what he ultimately wanted. As Shinji discovered that his life had value, so did he decide that the conclusion of complementation was not what he desired. In the movie we see his decision with dramatic effect as Giant Rei collapses, Eva-01 bursts free, and the Black Moon (the focal point for all of the released souls, the seat for the eventual “perfect single being”) explodes. In my opinion, if “complementation” as an end result was accepted, all of the souls of humanity, including Shinji’s, would have been merged into one within the Black Moon to form the ”TANTAI”.

Perhaps there is also a need to address the issue that although the fundamental meaning behind series and movie is the same, there maybe differences on another level. For example, in the movie, Asuka is seen to actively share Shinji's new world (possibly just to get an Adam-Eve motif), whereas in the series ending, she is a passive observer - does this mean that the movie ending explictly shows that Asuka also achieved the same level of enlightenment as Shinji

I agree, that though the “nature”, and thus ultimate meaning of both endings reach the same destination, they may not necessarily follow the same exact path. Now as to why Asuka specifically is there on the beach with Shinji in the end, I am going to leave that question open for tonight!

[JFaulkner]

It seems like a lifetime ago since I was active on AnimeBoards.
Those were the days .... actually, they probably weren't.


Though I set out ostensibly to construct an objective, analytical piece, the reality is that I was waging a war of propaganda against EvaOtaku and his (then very widely accepted) view that the endings presented very different conclusions .... Looking back now all these years later I think it achieved its objective.

It looks like it did achieve its objective, since on EvaOtaku's website, it now says his view is "unpopular." I am slightly surprised he is clinging onto his view - e.g. one of the arguments on his website is a quotation from a Newtype Filmbook description, with little indication of how reliable this source is (i.e. who wrote the thing, and why did the author refer to Shinji as "Complemented").


Perhaps now it is time to expand it to present a more rounded view.
I think symbolism is more important in the EoE, given the TV ending had less action. Personally, I think a Jungian framework is necessary and sufficient to explain the symbols used, and this aspect has been grossly neglected (well on the Internet at least) in the past. I thought if you were going to submit something to Brian Ruh on the concurrent nature, something about symbolism should be mentioned (although at the end of the day, you get to decide what to write), even if I have doubts about his credentials in this area.


I see complementationin this context as a conclusion, which results in a “TANTAI” or perfect single being, rather than a process. On the road to complementation the barriers between people need to be broken down (i.e. human kind must lose all physical form) and this is implied or directly shown in both endings. However, to quote the End of Evangelion Theatrical Program, ” The objective of the Instrumentality Project was the artificial evolution of humankind into a "perfect single being". This single being means a life form which ends as a single individual, and is used to differentiate from "colony" -- a life form comprised of multiple individuals.”. Shinji specifically rejected this conclusion; he understood his loss of physical form (it had happened to him before). The process itself wasn’t foreign to him (though he may not have understood how or why it was happening), however the result, the dissolution of Shinji’s individuality, was not what he ultimately wanted. As Shinji discovered that his life had value, so did he decide that the conclusion of complementation was not what he desired. In the movie we see his decision with dramatic effect as Giant Rei collapses, Eva-01 bursts free, and the Black Moon (the focal point for all of the released souls, the seat for the eventual “perfect single being”) explodes. In my opinion, if “complementation” as an end result was accepted, all of the souls of humanity, including Shinji’s, would have been merged into one within the Black Moon to form the ”TANTAI”.
I guess we agree that Shinji celebrated his individuality in both endings (the first time I saw both endings, I thought this was obvious, since Shinji is shown as an individual being on "his" new earth). So you see complementation as a result, i.e. "Third Impact -> choice between complementation or individuality", rather than "Third Impact -> complementation -> choice to get out of this state and achieve state of individuality". One reason why I thought the latter might be the case is that it seemed as though in the movie, Shinji might have already been part of this "TANTAI":

"Shinji:
Ayanami... where are we?

Rei:
This is the sea of LCL... The primordial soup of life.
A world without AT Fields... without your own shape.
An ambiguous world where it is impossible to tell where you end and other people start.
A fragile world where you exist everywhere, and thus exist nowhere.

Shinji:
Have I died?

Rei:
No, everything has just been joined into one.
This is the world you have been hoping for... your world.

Shinji (releasing Misato's cross from his left hand):
But... this isn't right. I don't think this is right.

Rei:
If you wish once more for the existence of others, the barriers of the heart will separate everyone once more...
And the fear of other people will begin again.

Shinji:
That's all right..."

Shinji appears to be in a world without AT Fields (in particular Rei says that Shinji must wish once more for the existence of others, suggesting there previously existed others, and now they don't exist, and would only exist once more if Shinji wished it), suggesting he is part of the "TANTAI" - i.e. he has been complemented. I suppose, looking back at the EvaOtaku argument after many years, this view would also deal with Episode 26 of the TV series, when it says on the screen:

"It was 2016 A.D.
The thing that people lost, in other words, the complementation of the mind has begun. However, there is not enough time to describe the entire process. Therefore, we will examine the complementation of the mind of a single boy named Ikari Shinji."

i.e. Shinji has been complemented, but that does not mean he has to stay that way - he is shown to reject it at the end of the TV series. Can your "Third Impact -> choice between complementation or individuality" framework deal with the above two factors?


I agree, that though the “nature”, and thus ultimate meaning of both endings reach the same destination, they may not necessarily follow the same exact path.
I think the main thing is that Shinji achieved his strong individual will to live, and how that pulls over to our lives ("stop running away from ourselves!"). The idea of a different path is interesting. Perhaps it is also interesting to look at how the way the drama unfolds differs in both endings, not just for Shinji, but for other characters such as Asuka (who I think, although sharing fundamentally the same psychological state as Shinji, needed a different path towards individuality).

Now as to why Asuka specifically is there on the beach with Shinji in the end, I am going to leave that question open for tonight!
I would suggest that the obvious reason is that she is there for the same reason as Shinji - she chose the path of individuality; quite how is not explicitly shown, but we might be able to infer this from the analyses on Asuka in the series ending and EoE (which is linked to the rest of the series).

[Ornette]

for what it's worth, there was a heated debate not long ago about concurrency on EMF here (http://www.evamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1833), starting on page 2 or so

[Reichu]

Personally, I think a Jungian framework is necessary and sufficient to explain the symbols used, and this aspect has been grossly neglected (well on the Internet at least) in the past.
I still haven't looked into Jung, although I would like to. Definitely true that it isn't mentioned very much with application to NGE. I am curious if it would bring any startling new revelations to someone such as myself (= devout uber-geek), or just add clarity (and loads of jargon) to things already known.

So you see complementation as a result, i.e. "Third Impact -> choice between complementation or individuality", rather than "Third Impact -> complementation -> choice to get out of this state and achieve state of individuality".
Just to nitpick,"Third Impact", by all indications, refers to the physical (and metaphysical) effects on the planet that must be achieved before HIP can occur. (Reducing all lifeforms to ooze so that human souls can be freed and gathered up for processing, and stuff like that.)

Shinji appears to be in a world without AT Fields (in particular Rei says that Shinji must wish once more for the existence of others, suggesting there previously existed others, and now they don't exist, and would only exist once more if Shinji wished it), suggesting he is part of the "TANTAI" - i.e. he has been complemented.
If that's really true, then there would be no Shinji to want others to come back. Or this is a plot hole the size of Jupiter.

I suppose, looking back at the EvaOtaku argument after many years, this view would also deal with Episode 26 of the TV series, when it says on the screen:

"It was 2016 A.D.
The thing that people lost, in other words, the complementation of the mind has begun. However, there is not enough time to describe the entire process. Therefore, we will examine the complementation of the mind of a single boy named Ikari Shinji."

i.e. Shinji has been complemented, but that does not mean he has to stay that way - he is shown to reject it at the end of the TV series.
The above is speaking of the "process"; they do not refer to a "completion". Far as I can tell, Instrumentality/Complementation (same thing) is a process -- the mode of artificial evolution -- and the Single Being is the product.

I would suggest that the obvious reason is that she is there for the same reason as Shinji - she chose the path of individuality; quite how is not explicitly shown, but we might be able to infer this from the analyses on Asuka in the series ending and EoE (which is linked to the rest of the series).
Since ATFs are restored at the end of EoE, what other path is there to take but that of individuality?

Restoring one's physical body seems to be implicitly associated with the concept of libido (as the antithesis of destrudo).

It appears that this thread has been officially hijacked.

[AnonymousEvafan]

If that's really true, then there would be no Shinji to want others to come back. Or this is a plot hole the size of Jupiter.

I said it before and I'll say it again Lilith doesn't follow the metaphysical laws that apply to everyone else. She was part of the Sea of LCL and yet she was cradling the Black Moon. Her powers at that point are beyond our feeble comprehension. Remember it's Anno's world he can do what he wants. If you don't like what's happening well tough shi+.

[Reichu]

... Non sequitur?

[AnonymousEvafan]

Since when is Lilith logical? She makes about as much sense as the damned spear. Somehow she is corralling all the souls into the Black Moon while simultaneously being one with them. At the point that's remotely possible her giving Shinji some semblance of individuality doesn't really seem that far fetched.

[Reichu]

You do realize that you introjected a bunch of stuff about Lilith without establishing in any way what it had to do with what was already being discussed, right? Not good protocal.

Are you essentially saying: "There's no logical explanation; ergo, Lilith did it, because Lilith is to narrativium as Tinkerbell is to levitation powder."? Reaching into the show's internal supplies of narrativium (for lack of anything better) to 'resolve' an issue should generally be considered a last resort.

[AnonymousEvafan]

Sorry about that didn't mean to skip ahead there my bad -_-; :redface: . I was trying to make sense of her words about a world without A.T. Fields. Somehow according to her everyone lost them and then got them back. How can we take this a face value it goes against the basic logic of how the process works.
Shinji:
Ayanami... where are we?

Rei:
This is the sea of LCL... The primordial soup of life.
A world without AT Fields... without your own shape.
An ambiguous world where it is impossible to tell where you end and other people start.
A fragile world where you exist everywhere, and thus exist nowhere.

Shinji:
Have I died?

Rei:
No, everything has just been joined into one.
This is the world you have been hoping for... your world.
That's as incomprehensible as the imaginary monoliths if you take it at face value. It's hard to believe she didn't know what she was talking about. Lilith's bizarre nature is about the only thing that can account for it unless you want to dismiss it as a plot hole which it may very well be. The more I think about this the more my head hurts :$%&#!: .

[Reichu]

Everything that Rei tells Shinji seems intrinsically paradoxical as long as Rei/Lilith and Shinji are there, existing as distinguishable (however merged) beings. However, the conversation was not considering these issues in terms of plot-based technicality; Lilith's bottomless bag of magic tricks becomes a moot point here, and is approaching things from the wrong angle.

[Dr. Nick]

I think symbolism is more important in the EoE, given the TV ending had less action. Personally, I think a Jungian framework is necessary and sufficient to explain the symbols used, and this aspect has been grossly neglected (well on the Internet at least) in the past.

I don't think that approach is necessary in any way; the show is capable of explaining its main points by itself. Any interpretations based on frameworks imported from outside of the immediate scope of the story are always "secondary material", no matter how well-construed and logical they might be. That's my layman's view.

If that's really true, then there would be no Shinji to want others to come back. Or this is a plot hole the size of Jupiter.

Don't you know? They used Jupiter to build the plot hole bomb.

[JFaulkner]

for what it's worth, there was a heated debate not long ago about concurrency on EMF here (http://www.evamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1833), starting on page 2 or so
I had a cursory glance at this, and the arguments do not seem to differ wildly from that of MDWigs and EvaOtaku.

I still haven't looked into Jung, although I would like to. Definitely true that it isn't mentioned very much with application to NGE. I am curious if it would bring any startling new revelations to someone such as myself (= devout uber-geek), or just add clarity (and loads of jargon) to things already known.
It depends on what kind of revelation you want. For me, Shinji was a person who was at a sheer lost to who he really was, due to a realization of how inadequately he knew himself. He had constructed convenient frameworks for viewing himself and others, which when pulled down, created a mental void which totally incapacitated him (a state like dementia praecox). The real task was to pull himself out of this void, i.e. create that new world perspective. A Jungian framework helps to understand this process in the context of the events in the anime (also see below reply to Dr. Nick). Ultimately, it is to highlight that this process is something which, if we dare to confront ourselves, can become a reality. Jung, like any other framework, has its jargon. I do not see a problem in this as long as the jargon is clearly explained. This is of course, critical for understanding him. When I first read a few of Jung's collected works (CW), I thought it was just crap. It was only much later when I read some of his earlier works that I understood what his jargon meant, and that they were based on everyday phenomena. Jung (e.g CW 3) has taken pains to explain his methodology, and the value of his work, which should help to ease misunderstanding, especially for people stuck in a scientific frame of mind.

Just to nitpick,"Third Impact", by all indications, refers to the physical (and metaphysical) effects on the planet that must be achieved before HIP can occur. (Reducing all lifeforms to ooze so that human souls can be freed and gathered up for processing, and stuff like that.)
So you are saying Third Impact is different from Instrumentality/Complementation? I agree in the sense that Third Impact is an event which creates the conditions for Complementation. But should it not still be valid to say e.g. "Third Impact -> choice between Complementation or Individuality"?

If that's really true, then there would be no Shinji to want others to come back. Or this is a plot hole the size of Jupiter.

Since ATFs are restored at the end of EoE, what other path is there to take but that of individuality?

Sorry about that didn't mean to skip ahead there my bad . I was trying to make sense of her words about a world without A.T. Fields. Somehow according to her everyone lost them and then got them back. How can we take this a face value it goes against the basic logic of how the process works.

What is the "basic logic of how the process works"? I guess the problem is that we conceptualize this "single form" as something which has a homogeneous way of thinking with no possibility of it developing individuality in some parts of it. In other words, once this single being is formed, all traces of Shinji vanishes and he can never think for himself again. Perhaps we need to change our conceptualization then? Instead of taking this "single form" literally, we can view it as a state which one is in when one loses their individuality, when they no longer feel the will to live an individual existence - the individual frame of mind is lost and becomes engulfed with psychic factors common to everyone. However, the individual mind can still be restored provided the will to do so is reignited (with help from Rei in Shinji's case; i.e. it is possible for just some AT Fields to return [those corresponding to a strong individual will], they do not all have to return if one returns) - and hence "Tantai" is not an irreversible state. Or if we insist on sticking to taking "single form" literally, perhaps we can just say there is another process which reverts part of this single form into the constituent individuals due to some trace of each individual remaining (i.e. what Rei was talking to, because she is divine and can detect this trace) which can be used to restore each individual, given the right circumstances (what is stopping us doing this?).

The above is speaking of the "process"; they do not refer to a "completion". Far as I can tell, Instrumentality/Complementation (same thing) is a process -- the mode of artificial evolution -- and the Single Being is the product.
This is what I originally thought, but MDWigs thought Complementation was more a conclusion. Taking account of your comments, I propose:
"Third Impact -> complementation -> tantai -> choice to get out of this tantai state and achieve state of individuality"

Restoring one's physical body seems to be implicitly associated with the concept of libido (as the antithesis of destrudo).
I agree, if we use a Freudian framework. Jung has a different meaning for libido, and to my knowledge, does not use the term destrudo.

I don't think that approach is necessary in any way; the show is capable of explaining its main points by itself. Any interpretations based on frameworks imported from outside of the immediate scope of the story are always "secondary material", no matter how well-construed and logical they might be. That's my layman's view.
I should have explained why I thought it was necessary:

Anno Hideaki wanted to portray his personal psychic processes in Evangelion, in other words, he tried to represent them in the form of the events transpiring in the anime (with help from his team). He has jumped from his own personal framework to the framework of Evangelion. I agree we can just use the concepts within Evangelion (e.g LCL is a sticky liquid, smelling like blood and is referred to as the "soup of life") to make sense of the plot in Evangelion. However, I am of the opinion that this is not enough. I advocate that we should try and link the meaning within the context of Evangelion back to the psychic processes which we experience in our realities. This is because what Anno tried to portray are personal psychic processes transpiring in real life, not in the world of Evangelion. Therefore, if we just decipher the plotline with no reference to our real lives, then I would say a large chunk of meaning is lost for us. In order to get at the meaning which Evangelion has for us, we need a separate framework (separate from the concepts used in the anime) to get at that meaning, which lies "behind" (as it were) the revealed plot.

For example, in the EoE, Third Impact occurs, everything turns to L.C.L, eventually Rei is seen sitting on top of Shinji with both of them naked, and Shinji remerges from this L.C.L. How are we to relate this to our lives if we just take e.g. L.C.L. as a sticky liquid smelling of blood, Rei as the First Children with the body of Yui and the soul of Lillith etc.? When we wake up in the morning, do we think about how Third Impact, as depicted in the anime, would have a significant effect on ourselves? I doubt it. I think we need some sort of mediating framework. Therefore, I would argue that what you cite as "secondary material" is actually essential. By interpreting events in Evangelion using this "secondary framework," we do not need to deny its meaning in the context of the anime. For example, we can still take L.C.L. as a sticky liquid smelling of blood. But we can then say it symbolizes something in our real lives (something in our psyches as they pertain in reality). This type of interpretation is prevalent in "religion" - for example, the story of Jesus has Jesus being crucified and then he was resurrected, and resided with God: what on earth does that have to do with the ordinary person on the street? If we interpret this literally using just the context of the story, then we are stuck. However, if we interpret it symbolically (much like some Gnostic sects), such that Jesus (a helper) is seen as symbolizing that part of us which strives towards a greater morality (the potential inherent in all humans), then the story has greater living value - it tells us how this "moralizing force" always exists, despite being battered on all sides by opposing factors. Of course, that was a crude example, but I just brought that up to make a point.

This brings me onto why a Jungian framework, in particular, might be useful. Given that the main issue is the human psyche, a scientific framework, I would argue, is not particularly insightful. This is because emergent properties of the psyche often cannot be subsumed under a Popperian falsifiable hypothesis framework (although I acknowledge branches of science have a different framework now). For example, an AT Field might be related to all manner of fields in physics. But so what? What does that tell us about the human psyche? Psychoanalysis deals with the fragility of the human mind. Furthermore, a Jungian framework deals with (obscure?) symbols from many religions and sources (e.g. Tree of Life), and explains religion in such a way that it has living value for people (one of the major outcomes of Jung's works in my opinion) - to release the living meaning behind fossilized dogma. It forges a link between symbols and the human psyche. A Freudian framework, to my knowledge, would not be able to deal with symbols such as a divine male/female pair (Rei/Kaworu) as well as a Jungian one. Also, I would argue a Jungian conception of soul is more appropriate.

[Dr. Nick]

I agree we can just use the concepts within Evangelion (e.g LCL is a sticky liquid, smelling like blood and is referred to as the "soup of life") to make sense of the plot in Evangelion. However, I am of the opinion that this is not enough.

This goes to show that there are different types of fans; like I've said many times before, I'm one of those boring, practical-minded people who are only interested in the story itself - I couldn't care less about any metatextual dimensions or whatever. And I kinda think this attitude is shared by a large, silent minority.

For example, in the EoE, Third Impact occurs, everything turns to L.C.L, eventually Rei is seen sitting on top of Shinji with both of them naked, and Shinji remerges from this L.C.L. How are we to relate this to our lives if we just take e.g. L.C.L. as a sticky liquid smelling of blood, Rei as the First Children with the body of Yui and the soul of Lillith etc.?

Why should we relate it to our lives? Most people, I argue again, don't feel such urge. I don't watch anime to find life-altering messages, I enjoy anime for its own sake. The interpretative approach you describe makes the show meaninful for you, but you shouldn't assume it works the same way for everybody. Your approach is purely subjective.

I've seen people who claim Evangelion needs to be interpreted from a Freudian framework, or from a buddhist framework, or from a framework of "service-sector, gender and information revolutions sweeping across Japan and the core economies of East Asia". No, I'm not kidding. (http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/GV.html) But in all those cases the wording is wrong: one does not need to interpret the show that way. One can interpret the show that way. And that's why I have a slight problem with you "advocating" your Jungian model. It makes about azzobillion times more sense than Dennis Redmond's psilocybin-induced descriptions of alien sex, but it's still subjective.

This type of interpretation is prevalent in "religion" - for example, the story of Jesus has Jesus being crucified and then he was resurrected, and resided with God: what on earth does that have to do with the ordinary person on the street? If we interpret this literally using just the context of the story, then we are stuck.

And since when has this forum been "stuck" with its mostly-literal, down-to-earth reading of NGE? After innumerable debates, most of which of course remained deliciously pointless, I claim we today have a rather clear idea of how the main plot plays out. Details remain, some will obsess over them, some will not. Neither have we needed any external frameworks to be able to extract the Big Meaning, "Choose life!", from the story (in before irony etc.). Methinks you don't give enough credit to us boring literalists.

(Also, comparing the (potential) symbolic depth of Evangelion and Christian religion seems a bit overkill to me.)

To demonstrate in a very simple way how all outside-framework interpretations are always secondary, think about this: would you be here putting forward these ideas of yours if you didn't have some sort of basic grasp of what's going on in the story in a literal sense (and your grasp seems way better than just "basic")? After all, there are lots of people who think EoE is just a collection of random special effects. Your theorizations are an offshoot of what I'd at least like to call the "objective" bedrock of analyzing and understanding this crazy, fuxored-up cartoon.

I emphasize again that I have nothing against your theories per se; I'm uninterested in them, but you shouldn't take that as an offence, that's just the sort of person I am. I'm merely hoping you would better acknowledge that there are different ways of reading into the story.

[Reichu]

There is only one proper way to analyze NGE, and that is over long hours of insomnia coming out of a sinus infection and going head-first into a manic episode, with the show gnawing away at the edges of one's consciousness like endlessly falling Tetris blocks. NGE never made such perfect sense before that -- and such little sense afterwards. http://www.evacommentary.org/forums/images/smiles/hahaha.gif

...nevermind.

[AnonymousEvafan]

I hate to say this but I liked your theories much better when you were manic. Not only were they entertaining most of them made alot of sense until the CI came along anyways.

[JFaulkner]

This goes to show that there are different types of fans; like I've said many times before, I'm one of those boring, practical-minded people who are only interested in the story itself - I couldn't care less about any metatextual dimensions or whatever. And I kinda think this attitude is shared by a large, silent minority.
I think this is a fair assessment of the current situation (except I take your self-description of "boring" with a pinch of salt!).

Why should we relate it to our lives? Most people, I argue again, don't feel such urge. I don't watch anime to find life-altering messages, I enjoy anime for its own sake.
I tried to explain why we should in the last post: "... because what Anno tried to portray are personal psychic processes transpiring in real life, not in the world of Evangelion. Therefore, if we just decipher the plotline with no reference to our real lives, then I would say a large chunk of meaning is lost for us."

I cannot say that all anime should be mined for the meaning of life, but specifically for NGE, there is a lot it can tell us, and this is the case whether the majority of people care for this meaning or not.

The interpretative approach you describe makes the show meaninful for you, but you shouldn't assume it works the same way for everybody. Your approach is purely subjective.
The approach I described gives meaning concerning how humans think and act. This, I would argue, has meaning for not just myself, and hence is not purely subjective.

I've seen people who claim Evangelion needs to be interpreted from a Freudian framework, or from a buddhist framework, or from a framework of "service-sector, gender and information revolutions sweeping across Japan and the core economies of East Asia". No, I'm not kidding. (http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/GV.html) But in all those cases the wording is wrong: one does not need to interpret the show that way. One can interpret the show that way. And that's why I have a slight problem with you "advocating" your Jungian model. It makes about azzobillion times more sense than Dennis Redmond's psilocybin-induced descriptions of alien sex, but it's still subjective.
I have also read essays on far-out frameworks such as "the state of post-war Japan in the context of Evangelion" (but your link was a new one).
What is evident is that many frameworks have been used for Evangelion. But why I "advocate" a Jungian model is not just to add to this morass of perspectives: I also claim it is the best (external) framework, insofar as it manages to give greater meaning to a substantial part of the anime which cannot be derived solely from the context of the anime, without doing damage to the central focus of the story. Not all the frameworks are on a level footing with respect to being relevant to the themes in Evangelion, and if there are strong reasons for a framework being the most relevant, then choosing such a framework is not a matter of whim, but has a kind of objective measure - the amount of relevance.

And since when has this forum been "stuck" with its mostly-literal, down-to-earth reading of NGE? After innumerable debates, most of which of course remained deliciously pointless, I claim we today have a rather clear idea of how the main plot plays out. Details remain, some will obsess over them, some will not. Neither have we needed any external frameworks to be able to extract the Big Meaning, "Choose life!", from the story (in before irony etc.). Methinks you don't give enough credit to us boring literalists.
I am not suggesting that this forum is benighted just because it predominantly discusses the "mostly-literal" meaning (taking your word for it as I do not know first-hand). Debating the plotlines in itself is not pointless. Having a grasp of the literal story is vital for any interpretation, and of course credit to all the literalists in that respect. I also agree that we can get the broad message "Choose life!" from just the story in the context of the anime.

I also agree that the plot of Evangelion in the anime context has been well delineated - so again credit to those who have done so.

Hence, I am not denying the value of the literal approach. I just think adding a relevant framework on top of this adds greater meaning to the results of the literal analysis (which already has meaning, but has extra meaning locked away, which can be accessed using a suitable external framework). The literal and the external framework approaches give results which complement each other. For example, I propose a Jungian framework because it can clarify and give extra insights into the process of how Shinji "chose life," by means of rendering a meaning to symbols such as "Angels" in a new light which is commensurate with their literal role in the anime. By this, I do not mean just a simple, brainless, arbitrary Angels = X relation, but carefully drumming out the relevant aspects and roles of Angels, as depicted in the anime, which would make it reasonable to construe them under a new light in a different framework - this means there is a tangible link between the literal aspect and the external framework concept. Without this link, which involves a consideration of the main themes of the anime and taking into account the literal aspects, then the external framework would be just a matter of taste. But if these links exist, and the concepts they connect gives greater meaning to Evangelion, then why should someone ignore what the framework can tell us? Especially when this greater meaning pertains to our lives? After all, none of the literal meaning has been pushed aside and the meaning has been augmented, through a non-arbitrary process. All the literal insights gained are not being pushed under the carpet, but built upon. Another possible outcome of the external framework approach is that it can form stronger links between literal aspects when they are viewed in a different light (e.g. Asuka and Shinji both without a mother but with their mothers' souls in their EVAs [literal aspect 1] and why the pilots need to be immersed in L.C.L. [literal aspect 2]).

Just a note on what I mean by "greater meaning" - one part of this "greater meaning" is that we can find evidence to suggest that the creators wanted to show something (a meaning which is deduced by virtue of said framework), and thus created linked concepts and characters in Evangelion to show this meaning (the literal story). In this way, the external framework analysis can also help to make us more aware of the reasons why the literal story is as it is, i.e. what the creators (a source which is even more "primary" than the literal story) wanted to show. An example to make this clearer: by using a Jungian framework, I claim that Kaworu together with Rei are "crucial" in retaining individuality, which would make the introduction of Kaworu by the creators reasonable (as opposed to a gimmick to confuse viewers late on in the anime). This goes back to the point of trying to get at the "personal psychic processes transpiring in real life" which Anno tried to portray.

(Also, comparing the (potential) symbolic depth of Evangelion and Christian religion seems a bit overkill to me.)
I brought up the Jesus story analogy not to make a comparison between the symbolic depth of NGE and Christianity, but just to make the point that a story, which can be interpreted in the literal sense, can have greater meaning if interpreted in a different sense, and that this new interpretation is not totally divorced from the literal aspects.

To demonstrate in a very simple way how all outside-framework interpretations are always secondary, think about this: would you be here putting forward these ideas of yours if you didn't have some sort of basic grasp of what's going on in the story in a literal sense (and your grasp seems way better than just "basic")? After all, there are lots of people who think EoE is just a collection of random special effects. Your theorizations are an offshoot of what I'd at least like to call the "objective" bedrock of analyzing and understanding this crazy, fuxored-up cartoon.
If I read you correctly, you are taking the anime in itself (definitions in the RCB, story as depicted without any external frameworks) as the primary material, from which any analysis is objective. However, here you are defining "objectivity" as having no bias towards an external framework (the aim of any such "objective" analysis is to do so from the primary material), and choosing to use this definition of objectivity is a subjective decision (why use that definition of "objectivity"? - i.e. why just stick to a primary analysis if an external framework can render greater meaning on top of it, and even complement it? ). I can take "objectivity" to be to try and render as much meaning from NGE as possible, but in a non-arbitrary way, in which case I can use an appropriate external framework, and achieve a greater objectivity (you would call this framework "secondary" to distinguish it from the primary material: this is fine, but the "secondary" does not have to denote some sort of unecessary tool if the objective is changed).

[JFaulkner]

Final part of reply to Dr. Nick (ran out of word space in the last post):

I emphasize again that I have nothing against your theories per se; I'm uninterested in them, but you shouldn't take that as an offence, that's just the sort of person I am. I'm merely hoping you would better acknowledge that there are different ways of reading into the story.
No offence taken at all; I welcome these types of discussion (when I have time to respond!), not least because it forces the issues out into the open and obliges me to look at my own viewpoint and that of others in a more critical sense.

I do acknowledge the importance of reading Evangelion literally, but I also argue for the importance of a Jungian framework, over other frameworks. If it can give greater insight into the series in the ways I have mentioned above, then I think that is of interest (and for those uninterested, I cannot force you to be interested, but can try and explain why I think it is of interest, like in my posts). Conversely, if it can be shown that Jung is useless at giving this promised insight, then I would happily pack my bags and get on with the rest of my life. But from what I know of Jung, there are just too many ways in which it can help to illuminate NGE - not just a few sentences here and there taken out of context, but entire chapters spread across many books (and not just on symbols, but also the themes - e.g. the theme of "I am still a child" [Episode 21] is shown explicitly in the analysis of one of Jung's patients [words to that effect were used by said patient, in a similar context]).

[JFaulkner]

I tried to explain why we should in the last post: "... because what Anno tried to portray are personal psychic processes transpiring in real life, not in the world of Evangelion. Therefore, if we just decipher the plotline with no reference to our real lives, then I would say a large chunk of meaning is lost for us."
This is assuming that you care about what Anno wanted to portray - if you do not, then the "should" would not apply - you are correct. But if you do not care about what Anno wanted to portray, then a large chunk of meaning is still lost, whether one cares for that meaning or not.

Now this is assuming that this "meaning which is lost" has value not just on a pure subjective level - the reason I gave for this is because the meaning involves how humans think and act. Of course, one can then say, what about people who do not care about how humans think and act. I would then probably try and argue that we should care about how humans think and act - however this is now moving into the minefield of morality, ethics and philosophies, and I do not have time to go into what I think about that here.

But then, I suppose whether we should care about how humans think and act is separate from the idea that Jung can help us to a greater understanding of the themes in NGE (i.e it does not matter whether people should care about this type of greater understanding or not).

[OMF]

There is only one proper way to analyze NGE, and that is over long hours of insomnia coming out of a sinus infection and going head-first into a manic episode, with the show gnawing away at the edges of one's consciousness like endlessly falling Tetris blocks. NGE never made such perfect sense before that -- and such little sense afterwards. http://www.evacommentary.org/forums/images/smiles/hahaha.gif

...nevermind.

I wrote a script once that randomly played segments from episodes until told to stop. The effect was much the same.

[Reichu]

I hate to say this but I liked your theories much better when you were manic.
I think I did, too. :lol: I still haven't managed to truly erase conviction in, or, at least, sentimental attachment to many of those theories. The "presentation" simply changed as I reverted to a more mundane (and sustainable) mind-state.

Not only were they entertaining most of them made alot of sense until the CI came along anyways.
A lot were based on bits and pieces of the CI. The full CI, however, rendered many -- such as the great fanwank, "The Duel of the Seeds" -- defunct.

I wrote a script once that randomly played segments from episodes until told to stop. The effect was much the same.
Ooo, do tell.

(Apologies for the pointless tangent. I couldn't resist.)

[AnonymousEvafan]

I wrote a script once that randomly played segments from episodes until told to stop.
Um didn't GAINAX already beat you to that idea and call it Death?

[JFaulkner]

This post condenses some of the arguments I have given in my previous posts, to highlight the main reasons why using a Jungian framework is legitimate, and is also of value.


Proposition 1: Anno tried to portray personal psychic processes transpiring in real life in Evangelion; furthermore, the overarching theme which Anno tried to portray is how one stops "running away" into a hopeless state.

Argument to support Proposition 1: In Anno's words (published in first collected manga volume of Evangelion; Translation: Mari Morimoto and Fred Burke for Viz Comics):

"I tried to include everything of myself in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- myself, a broken man who could do nothing for four years.

A man who ran away for four years, one who was simply not dead.

Then one thought:

"You can't run away,"

came to me, and I restarted this production.

It is a production where my only thought was to burn my feelings into film.

....

That is because within me, the story is not yet finished."

Anno tried to include "everything" of himself (a man who ran away) in NGE; he wanted to "burn" his feelings into film. The story is played out "within him" and is not finished, suggesting that critical aspects of the anime are intrinsically linked to him. This is very strong, if not decisive, evidence for Proposition 1.


Proposition 2: A Jungian framework can be applied to Evangelion. (nothing is said about the value in doing so.

Argument to support Proposition 2: Proposition 1 shows that a critical (but not the only) source of the anime is Anno's thoughts and emotions, which is reflected in the anime. The anime is a piece of work which contains aspects which reflect Anno's thoughts, emotions and overaching theme.

Consider an analogy: a group of people living in a village create a new "religion" based on their collective thoughts and emotions. Laymen and academics alike know nothing else of this group of people. They only have access to a text telling a story, used as their equivalent of the Bible. To get at their collective thoughts and emotions, one can take this story in its literal context (a "literal analysis"). True, this gives some insights. However, several frameworks have already been created throughout history (e.g. psychoanalysis, modern psychology) specifically to deal with human thoughts and emotions. Therefore, these frameworks can be used to analyse the story as well, to see if they give any greater insight. This methodology is widespread in theology, psychology and the social sciences, and is based on the literal material.

Another analogy is from the "hard" sciences, which shows that the use of external frameworks is actually "objective" in the scientific sense. Suppose there is a natural phenomenon whose proximate and ultimate causation is unknown - say a population of feral cats started attacking a population of foxes. Then suppose one would like to get at the two types of causes (the "meaning" - if one is not interested in this holistic "meaning", then why bother with any type of analysis?). One cannot progress too far if one sticks to just the literal facts - i.e. a population of feral cats started attacking a population of foxes. That is the "primary material." It does not tell us much. Inevitably, biologists would like to cast this problem within an existing framework (created from the existing literature - e.g. what is already known about feral cats and foxes), advance hypotheses and carry out experiments and the associated statistics to test the hypotheses. Different biologists use different frameworks - for example, animal physiologists would want to recast the problem on a smaller scale than a population ecologist. These different frameworks all give a part of the overall meaning, and is based on the literal facts (***).

These examples are nothing revolutionary; on the contrary, they are age-old examples showing the process of human analysis.

Applying the same idea to Evangelion:
It is entirely legitimate to use different (external) frameworks to analyse the primary material in Evangelion (whether this is worthwhile is another matter). There is no strong reason to reject the application of external frameworks per se, because these frameworks are used not to destroy the literal facts, but to recast them in a different light.

Provided the frameworks give conclusions pertinent to the nature of the problem and have a tangible link to the literal facts (so that we do not apply frameworks haphazardly, leading to essays on Evangelion's relation to the old man down the street), then any conclusions drawn from these frameworks are not based on wanton playfulness, but ultimately from the literal facts in a reasonable way, which makes them as "objective" (in the sense of being based on the literal/primary material) as a literal analysis, which also draws conclusions based on the literal facts (these facts are found in the literal context). The use of such external frameworks in science shows their "objective" value.


Proposition 3: A Jungian framework can give greater meaning to (a greater understanding of) the overarching theme of Evangelion.

Argument to support Proposition 3: From Proposition 1, the overarching theme is one of "running away" from oneself. I claim that:

A Jungian framework can help to explain certain of the events in Evangelion in such a way as to give a greater insight as to what this "running away" theme actually entails. By doing so, it can forge stronger links between literal aspects and between the literal aspects and the overarching theme, and clarifies Anno's personal psychic processes when he was making Evangelion. .

This claim is based on what I have written up as my "essay" so far, which is in turn based on my analysis of Evangelion using a Jungian framework. Now if this claim is true, then it shows that a Jungian framework is of value, precisely because it can illuminate the aspects mentioned, which include its fundamental, overarching theme (hence, the value of the framework is significant by virtue of the fact that using it in a certain way can aim directly at elaborating the core issue of the anime).


***********

In short, I think the above gives clear, solid reasons for the validity of using a Jungian framework and the value in doing so. Also, it avoids any use of the word "should" which gives rise to a morality minefield. It simply relies on the reasoning that a Jungian framework is of value because it can give a greater understanding of some important aspects of Evangelion (important insofar as it pertains to one of the major reasons why Evangelion is as it is - viz. Anno's thoughts and emotions when he was involved in its production).


(***) It might be objected that this analogy is not totally correct because you cannot carry out experiments on Evangelion. However, the main point is that an external framework is being applied - the argument still makes sense if no experiments are carried out (it does not depend on there being any experiments): e.g. suppose scientists have in their hands a set of data collected from some expedition, experiment or whatever. This is the primary data (analogous to the anime Evangelion). They want to make sense of this data, which, for the sake of argument, is a video of a population of feral cats attacking a population of foxes. Scientists often want to test for a significant relationship between two sets of factors. To do this they have to apply a statistical framework (analogous to introducing an external framework to Evangelion) to two sets of numbers (which represent the two sets of factors: here, it could be the number of feral cats and foxes taken through time, taken from the video), which can be totally unrelated to the framework from which the primary data occurs in (e.g. popn of feral cats attacks popn of foxes, which occurs in an ecological setting - note that this "ecological setting" itself is a framework imposed on the immediate experience given to us by sensory perception, or a video camera) and is used to recast the problem in a different light. However, by applying the usual array of t-tests, etc., they can then show that the relationship between the two sets of numbers is significant, which indicates a significant relation between one factor and another - i.e. they have gained a greater understanding of the primary data (obtaining in one framework) through use of another framework. This result is then suitable to be published, or disseminated to the media. This is just one example from the top of my head.

[JFaulkner]

And an appendix (my underlines):

"I tried to include everything of myself in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- myself, a broken man who could do nothing for four years.

A man who ran away for four years, one who was simply not dead.

Then one thought:

"You can't run away,"

came to me, and I restarted this production.

It is a production where my only thought was to burn my feelings into film.

....

That is because within me, the story is not yet finished."


This states in clear-cut fashion what the fundamental theme of the show is. If anyone claims they are not interested in this "running away from oneself" theme, then can that person truly be said to be interested in Evangelion itself [note: this is not directed at anyone in particular here! p.s. I also acknowledge the value in a literal analysis!]?

Given that this theme is of such importance, it is not hard to see what value it can have for us. If, as I argue, this "running away" is a running away from our true selves, a turning away from all our unconscious thoughts which we hide for fear of losing a comfortable yet superficial frame of mind (bereft of true feeling), then it is shown so clearly in the anime that this "running away" will lead to a state of being "simply not dead" forevermore.

Can we ignore this message in our real lives with any real conviction? Are we running away from ourselves?

[note: this is not directed at anyone in particular here! I am asking people to consider the answer to these questions themselves! Because they strike me as important questions, implicit in the main theme of Evangelion!].

[JFaulkner]

Real life is calling; I will stop messageboard activity indefinitely.


As I alluded to in my last post, ultimately, I am only really interested in how Evangelion can inspire people to stop running away from themselves (experimentia est optima rerum magistra!).

It just so happens Jung was obsessed with the theme of how to stop people running away from themselves, and so it was that I saw great similarities.

Now, I am not aiming this at anyone here since I am not familiar with this place: From my experience on the Internet, it seems to me that very few people (critics of NGE, fans of NGE, academics, non-academics) actually get what a powerful, unifying theme this is, and even fewer care about what a serious issue it is (despite what Anno wrote - "simply not dead"; "broken man", and what was shown to happen to Shinji). So as Dr. Nick said, maybe the majority simply care more about Misato's fan service or EVAs crushing things. And when has the majority ever had a predisposition to look seriously outside the "consensus omnium"?

[AchtungAffen]

I have another proposition, which probably is logically best in analyzing Eva and expecting to get results considered "true", as in necessary (being one way and never another) and universal, inside the Eva canon.

Only Eva explains Eva

All external stuff, anything outside Eva's canon, doesn't give necessary facts inside Eva. Eva is different from reality, the rules that apply in real might not apply in Eva. There's no way to check them. You can't check that gravity in Eva is in all cases the same as in reality, that can't be measured intra-canon.

That's why I think all answers to Eva's misteries, whose source is outside Eva's canon, don't give necessary facts inside Eva. Just things that might be the same as they might not be. Suppositions, in the end.

[JFaulkner]

I have another proposition, which probably is logically best in analyzing Eva and expecting to get results considered "true", as in necessary (being one way and never another) and universal, inside the Eva canon.

Only Eva explains Eva
This is a proposition.

All external stuff, anything outside Eva's canon, doesn't give necessary facts inside Eva.
Why? This is a proposition. [What is a necessary fact? You mean the stuff in the RCB? The whole point of me showing why external frameworks are valid, my Proposition 2, was to show that you can use these frameworks - did you read it?]

Eva is different from reality, the rules that apply in real might not apply in Eva.
Why? Just because you said so? Equally, the rules that apply in real might apply to Eva, when Eva is interpreted in the right way, based on the literal meaning [Eva and reality are obviously not identical, but they have many parallels which render the translation of meaning between the two realms possible, but have I not made this clear enough in my many posts?] This is a proposition.

There's no way to check them. You can't check that gravity in Eva is in all cases the same as in reality, that can't be measured intra-canon.
[Eva has many aspects which can be translated to real life - i.e. "checked"? Is that not clear enough from my many posts?]

That's why I think all answers to Eva's misteries, whose source is outside Eva's canon, don't give necessary facts inside Eva. Just things that might be the same as they might not be. Suppositions, in the end.
You cannot base conclusions of any credibility on a bunch of propositions/statements with no real arguments whatsoever.

Furthermore, you have in no way considered my arguments, or offered counter-arguments. Therefore, my position has not been refuted in any way.




EDIT: In short, you set up the definition of something being "true" as something literally transpiring in the anime, with no real justification , and then proceed to push forward "Only Eva explains Eva" as if only the literal analysis can explain [i]everything about Eva, again with no proper arguments. I have shown in my posts why an external framework can give a greater meaning/understanding to (i.e. explain) certain parts of the anime, and that is why there is value in introducing such a framework, as opposed to sticking to the "Eva canon" (just the anime context, which in any case is linked to the real world context by virtue of Anno trying to put his real emotions and thoughts into it).

So the idea of everything deriving from the literal analysis as "canon" and everything else being purely subjective (a matter of mere perspective) and random just will not hold on closer scrutiny. The literal analysis is important, but not the only method of value. You can call results from the literal analysis exclusively as "canon," "gospel," "objective," "true," "logical," "rational," "universal," "essential," "necessary," "the crux," or whatever, but when you look at the issue closely, since external frameworks can give meaning to NGE based strongly on the literal material and which is totally in line with the fundamental theme, the exclusive use of these appellations, although appealing and convincing for the converted, at best misleads and at worst stunts critical thinking.

[AchtungAffen]

Chesterton explained better what fairy tales and reality have in common. In reality, the apple fell on Newton's nose. In fairy tale, the apple might choose to fly away to the nose of someone it hates more. But in fairy tale and in reality, only logic stays the same. In fairy tale and in reality, two 4 legged horses sum 8 legs. Not 4, not 6.

The thing about Eva != reality is that Eva is the fictional product of fallible humans. They might not be able to apply all the rules of reality or myth inside the fictional work exactly the same as in the external reference. As you cannot positively measure everyone of the rules that apply in reality to Eva, you cannot be logically sure those rules stay the same.

In the myths, Adam was the first human who had intercourse with Lilith, then Lilith made the demons and stuff. Obviously, it's been stated inside Eva that this is different. Myth does not apply exactly the same inside Eva. Mythical external references are not necessary inside Evas canon. The same with physical laws.

That's why only Eva's canon gives necessary facts for Eva and nothing else has the same level of certainty as that. Not psychology, not physics, not even religion. Nothing external is necessarily the same inside Eva.

[JFaulkner]

Chesterton explained better what fairy tales and reality have in common. In reality, the apple fell on Newton's nose. In fairy tale, the apple might choose to fly away to the nose of someone it hates more. But in fairy tale and in reality, only logic stays the same. In fairy tale and in reality, two 4 legged horses sum 8 legs. Not 4, not 6.

The thing about Eva != reality is that Eva is the fictional product of fallible humans. They might not be able to apply all the rules of reality or myth inside the fictional work exactly the same as in the external reference. As you cannot positively measure everyone of the rules that apply in reality to Eva, you cannot be logically sure those rules stay the same.

In the myths, Adam was the first human who had intercourse with Lilith, then Lilith made the demons and stuff. Obviously, it's been stated inside Eva that this is different. Myth does not apply exactly the same inside Eva. Mythical external references are not necessary inside Evas canon. The same with physical laws.

That's why only Eva's canon gives necessary facts for Eva and nothing else has the same level of certainty as that. Not psychology, not physics, not even religion.

Eva is a fictional product of Anno (and others), which reflects the real thoughts and feelings of Anno. Therefore, some aspects of real emotions and thoughts are in the anime. Anno has stated that the images and story are not totally divorced from real thoughts and emotions (read the quote). Therefore, using psychology is valid because it deals with the "rules" of real emotions and thoughts. The main theme of the show is "running away." This is clearly linked to real life, and the way humans think. The point of analysis is to try and show a tangible link between the literal material and some other claim. If you can do that, then there is nothing to deny its validity (see my Propositions 2 and 3), apart from some arbitrary definition of "necessary" which renders anything not within the literal context of the anime pointless and bereft of meaning. As I have clearly pointed out, this type of analysis is prevalent in the hard sciences, and furthermore, has yielded real results which no-one in their right mind would deny just because they were derived from a different framework than "reality" as we encounter it in our lives (i.e a different framework to our framework of just using sense perception to experience, a different framework which includes scientific tools, concepts and premises built on past evidence). The same idea applies to Evangelion.

You say we cannot "positively" measure "logically" whether the rules in Eva have any relation to that of another framework. Well, yes you can. You use reasoning and deduction based on the premises of the framework, and see if the conclusions are aligned with the fundamental meaning and the literal meaning. This is standard practice in so many real disciplines. Also, you contradict yourself:

"in fairy tale and in reality, only logic stays the same."

"As you cannot positively measure every one of the rules that apply in reality to Eva, you cannot be logically sure those rules stay the same."

So you can use logic to deduce similarities between a fairy tale and reality, but not for Eva, which is a "fairy tale" - in which case it should have the same logic as for reality!

Adam and Lillith have a different meaning in Eva than the real life Hebrew myth. OK. But do you know that in psychoanalysis, Adam and Lillith also have a different meaning from the Hebrew myth, which is in alignment with the meaning they have in Eva (this can be shown by carefully considering how they are similar), and which might render a meaning which is commensurate with the theme of "running away." So mythical references are not useless if they are interpreted in a "non-religious" context. Not all physical laws are different (e.g. Shinji, when he walks on the pavement, moves according to physical laws pertaining in real life). Those events (e.g. Rei appearing for a split second in the first episode) which do not conform to physical laws can be rendered a symbolic meaning, using another framework, which gives greater meaning to the anime.

You say all "external stuff" do not attain the same level of "certainty." But "certainty" of what? It is certain that Anno wanted to show the theme of running away. It is certain that external frameworks can give greater meaning to this theme based on the anime. So "external stuff" is certain of showing, to a degree, the meaning behind Evangelion. Which is what a literal analyis does too. So what's the problem?

And finally, the idea of taking everything (rules, character actions etc) in Eva as completely different from reality (our real lives) is faintly ridiculous: there are people in Eva; there are people in our real lives, in real life there are people who show the same psychological state as Shinji (Anno for example, by his own admission), there is a ship in Evangelion which operates in a way that is the same as in real life, Shinji lives in a town with houses, trains etc. which function in the same way as real life, Misato has sex with Kaji, there are weddings, people use computers, people go to school, people watch TV and use the phone etc etc.. This is no pure fairy tale (if such a thing exists) where everything has a different rule and meaning from our reality.

And one more note, you say Evangelion is "fictional" - what do you mean by that? Evangelion has a fictional context, but with a meaning which pertains to real life, as I have said many times, due to Anno trying to show his real emotions and feelings within it.

Evangelion is not divorced from reality, and this is evident just from a literal analysis. Your basic argument, if I read you correctly, that only "Eva's canon" gives "certainty" does not hold.

EDIT:

Nothing external is necessarily the same inside Eva.
Equally, Nothing external is necessarily different inside Eva. That is the whole point of analysis. If the analysis shows that they are the "same" in some strong respect, then you might be able to use the external concept to draw out greater meaning from Eva, which is just as "certain" since it has been shown to have a tangible link to the literal material. An external framework can still get meaning which a literal analysis tries to do, and this is the defining criteria which makes applying an external framework legitimate - the defining criteria is not whether the framework is an internal or an external framework (there is no strong reason to adopt this criteria over the first one - the ultimate point of analysis is to find meaning in some sense, not just to choose frameworks on the basis that they do not introduce anything at all that is outside of what is presented to us literally, no matter how closely linked and useful that "anything" is).

[AchtungAffen]

Psychology deals with real humans. The characters inside Eva are not humans per se but some sort of reflection of what the creators thought. That's a big difference.

Also, psychology is speculative knowledge. It's not hard science, it's results lack a lot of necessity.

And thirdly, Anno & Staff knowledge about real psychology was probably minimal. Anno stated he "took a course" of psychology in the Uni. Remember, Anno was expelled from Uni, so go figure how much did he get from that course. He also "read a book" about psychological dissorders. That's very very far away from being a PHd or experienced in psychology or psychiatry. Their knowledge of psychology as put in Eva might not be the exact same as the real one. Besides, there's very little observation possible about psychology inside Eva. It's not like you can put Shinji in the sofa and ask him to talk you about his father.

Opening the door for externalities to explain Eva and expect necessary correct results (results which are the same for everyone) is a methodological error. Eva is fiction, not reality. In Eva's fiction you can't do all the observations and tests you can do on reality, that's why you can never be sure the external rules apply in fiction too. The only source for valid and necessary facts inside Eva just lies inside Eva, because everything Eva says will be appliable inside Eva. But not everything (and you can never be sure as to when it does) external applies inside Eva (for example, myth or physics in all cases - positron ray in the atmosphere: impossible in reality).

Using external stuff as fundaments for Eva might give logical correct results, but only outside Eva, never inside; you always have the doubt about if rules in Eva are the same in reality. The logical impossibility to define that, makes all answers based on external references, as things that can be as well as they can't: suppositions, not facts. Inside Eva, of course.

And I'm not talking about what Anno wanted to say, I'm talking about what was said. Probably they had nothing or just couldn't say what they wanted, more considering Eva's messy production and changes from beginning of it till the end. What the creators say they wanted to say falls behind what was actually said. You can make interpretations of everything in any way possible, Eco explained that quite well in Foucault's Pendulum. But the object, the empiria, if logical, only has one path. Probably not always clear, but the clear parts will be the only ones really necessary.

[JFaulkner]

Psychology deals with real humans. The characters inside Eva are not humans per se but some sort of reflection of what the creators thought. That's a big difference.

Psychology deals with processes pertaining to humans, which are shown in Evangelion. Why is there such a big difference? Do you not recognize that how the people behave in Evangelion shows similarities with people in real life? e.g. Misato cries because Kaji was killed - not a quantum leap to relate this to someone crying in real life. A more detailed analysis makes this even clearer.

Also, psychology is speculative knowledge. It's not hard science, it's results lack a lot of necessity.
It is not a hard science, you are right (would not exactly call it "speculative knowledge" though - but I will not pursue this here). When I referred to "hard sciences," I was pointing back to my Proposition 2, where I stated how applying an external framework to "primary material" is a prevalent methodology in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), a field which I am in at the moment.

And thirdly, Anno & Staff knowledge about real psychology was probably minimal. Anno stated he "took a course" of psychology in the Uni. Remember, Anno was expelled from Uni, so go figure how much did he get from that course. He also "read a book" about psychological dissorders. That's very very far away from being a PHd or experienced in psychology or psychiatry. Their knowledge of psychology as put in Eva might not be the exact same as the real one. Besides, there's very little observation possible about psychology inside Eva. It's not like you can put Shinji in the sofa and ask him to talk you about his father.
Anno and staff do not have to be experts in psychology to portray emotions and feelings in an art format - many people are able to portray their feelings in paintings and poems, and have been shown to do so throughout history in the form of artistis, poets, philosophers etc. "There is very little observation possible about psychology inside Eva" - again, you have no argument to back this up. I can write pages on "psychology inside Eva" just from the top of my head. You cannot put Shinji on the sofa - but you can infer his mental processes, which are a reflection of Anno's, from the anime events, using existing frameworks.

Opening the door for externalities to explain Eva and expect necessary correct results (results which are the same for everyone) is a methodological error. Eva is fiction, not reality. In Eva's fiction you can't do all the observations and tests you can do on reality, that's why you can never be sure the external rules apply in fiction too. The only source for valid and necessary facts inside Eva just lies inside Eva, because everything Eva says will be appliable inside Eva. But not everything (and you can never be sure as to when it does) external applies inside Eva (for example, myth or physics in all cases - positron ray in the atmosphere: impossible in reality).
Yes, the only source is Eva, and then we apply frameworks to this source, to get some meaning. I have already pointed out the reasons why applying an external framework is legitimate - these reasons show why it is not a methodological error as it gives results which relate to the fundamental theme of the show. External frameworks are used regularly in the hard sciences to make sense of primary data. So you would call all this a "methodological error" too?

Eva has a fictional context which has meaning pertaining to reality by virtue of Anno trying to portray his thoughts and feelings in reality - we can interpret it to get at that part which has meaning in reality. Eva is not pure fiction where everything, including its meaning, is fictional. You really have to clarify what you mean by "fiction" - do you mean just its context or its meaning as well? If the latter, then I totally disagree, and I think I have given enough examples and reasons why already, which you do not seem to have argued against.

Using external stuff as fundaments for Eva might give logical correct results, but only outside Eva, never inside; you always have the doubt about if rules in Eva are the same in reality. The logical impossibility to define that, makes all answers based on external references, as things that can be as well as they can't: suppositions, not facts. Inside Eva, of course.
No. You totally fail to see that when you provide a link between the primary material and the concepts in an external framework, then there is a connection such that the meaning behind the concepts feeds into the primary material. If there is a tangible "logical" link between the two, then the logical results apply to both - that is a basic quality of a logical result. If you want to show that this link is spurious, then you have to show why it is using logic.

And I'm not talking about what Anno wanted to say, I'm talking about what was said. Probably they had nothing or just couldn't say what they wanted, more considering Eva's messy production and changes from beginning of it till the end. What the creators say they wanted to say falls behind what was actually said.
Why not go a bit further, and say that the whole story is incoherent, and that the definition of e.g. "Angel" fluctuates between episode to episode because the staff changed their minds? In order to see if Anno's words and the anime are related, you see if the themes in the anime tie in with Anno's words, and when you see Shinji muttering "I must not run away" etc., you cannot deny there is a tangible link. You are trying to play down this theme, even though it is shown in the anime and Anno said it himself. You state

"Probably they had nothing or just couldn't say what they wanted, more considering Eva's messy production and changes from beginning of it till the end"

which is just a weak argument because it is not known how Eva's "messy production" impacted on the intentions of Anno, so you cannot cite that as proof of anything. The words by Anno are the most reliable we have, and given that they do hold true in light of some of the events shown in the anime, we do not have a strong reason to doubt them.


You can make interpretations of everything in any way possible, Eco explained that quite well in Foucault's Pendulum. But the object, the empiria, if logical, only has one path. Probably not always clear, but the clear parts will be the only ones really necessary.
You state that as if that is some sort of accepted law. I contest that you cannot make interpretations of everything in any way possible, with all the interpretations on a level footing with the same meaning with respect to some criteria. If that is the case, depending on which criteria we choose, we can say some interpretations are "better" than others. Name-dropping on its own to support an argument rarely gets anywhere [and before anyone points this out, I have been guilty of this too], because it does not show in any way that the name-dropper understsands the underlying argument behind the idea proposed by the person whose name was dropped. For example, I can easily say that my idea of interpretations is shown by Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Karl Jaspers and Martin Buber - for example Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" shows that some interpretations are clearly better than others; we should look at all interpretations and try and get a synthesis of all of them - look at their bad and good points and try to derive an interpretation which is more holistic and therefore "better." However this shows nothing, because I have not detailed the underlying premises of Nietzsche's argument, so in all honesty, I have not shown I understood his argument correctly and should not use it to support another argument.

So in fact, you have not made an argument to support your claim that "You can make interpretations of everything in any way possible."

[Ornette]

Now, I am not aiming this at anyone here since I am not familiar with this place: From my experience on the Internet, it seems to me that very few people (critics of NGE, fans of NGE, academics, non-academics) actually get what a powerful, unifying theme this is, and even fewer care about what a serious issue it is (despite what Anno wrote - "simply not dead"; "broken man", and what was shown to happen to Shinji). So as Dr. Nick said, maybe the majority simply care more about Misato's fan service or EVAs crushing things. And when has the majority ever had a predisposition to look seriously outside the "consensus omnium"?
I think that many of the "literalists" do understand the underlying meaning, although I will agree with you that a large number of people who have watched the show probably don't get it. When I first watched all of Eva and the movie, I was left with a powerful impression. It didn't take any analysis for me to get what Anno was trying to say, even before I read his letter from the start of the series production in the Viz manga. But after all these years, I'm more interested in what the Spear of Longinus is, why it ended up impaled in Adam, what some of the Angels were really doing, why Nerv suddenly lost power, among tons of other mysteries. I understand how an external framework can give you insight (Geometric Topology and Leliel, for example) and that you're not using it to explain away these mysteries. But, there's been people in the past that would use external frameworks in an attempt to prove or disprove things in Eva (in biology vertabrae procreate THIS way, therefore Adam could not be female, or other such nonsense). Getting a deeper meaning is fine, like quantum mechanics/String Theory paralleling the S^2 theory of sprals, but I can't use it for an argument for why Eva-01 started at the sea of dirac and ended up in the "body" of Leliel, Anno probably didn't study String Theory and his intention for what happened to Eva-01 may or may not have anything to do with quantum mechanics.

Either way, whenever you finish writing your analysis of Evangelion using a Jungian framework, I'd be interested in reading it.

[AchtungAffen]

in biology vertabrae procreate THIS way, therefore Adam could not be female, or other such nonsense

Arrrgh. That sounds more or less like what I'm saying against the female theory. I agree with your understanding of the external references and the explanation of Eva using only Eva.

But my critique to that female idea is not based on biology. The central point on the female theory seems to be, as I understand it, Kaworu calling Adam a mother. The theory says then that mother = female. And then there are the consequences: if Adam is female, Evas as clones from Adam are females too. So when Kaworu says kanojyou he has to be referring about the body and not just the soul of Eva-02 who in fact is a woman in all our senses.

I contest that mother = female in the Kaworu quote. It's possible that Kaworu might have not been meaning mother literally, right? Same as the Aimará called Earth "Pacha Mama" (mother Earth). They didn't mean the planet was a woman, but the planet gave birth to life, like a mother. An analogy.

In language, female/male is just a classification for beings of the same species, the most basical classification inside a species. The first and essential division you can find. As this classification requires both terms to prove real, classifying something as one of the terms without the existance of the other isn't correct. I'm not saying that if all male dissappear then females stop being so. But I'm saying that if there weren't in the first instance the two terms to classify, then the classification is rendered useless.

And then there's the other Eva side to this issue. We have SoL and we have life forms that from the SoL's are born. We know that the SoL's and their respective creations aren't essentially the same. Hell, the same rules don't even apply to them (example, soul-ATF-body form which doesn't seem to apply for SoL's). And then, the product of SoL's aren't SoL's themselves.

We don't have a clue how life spawns from SoL's. We don't know if they need to be impregnated or not to spawn. What we do know is that they are different from their spawns and that the rules that apply for one might not apply for the other.

I don't think it's correct to take Kaworu's "mother" as equal to "female" literally when we don't even know if there were in the first instance "male" SoL's, nor how the SoL's spawn life forms. Imposing the gender for something that probably hasn't it because of a word which might just be an analogy.

Did Kaworu mean mother in the female sense or in the spawning life one without regards of gender? What is the fundament to say a classification of a SoL as a female, means female same as in human beings? You might classify SoL's as female, but what does female mean in this sense? Does it have a meaning in human terms even though SoL's are essentially different from the things they produce? They don't even reproduce then! They spawn something which isn't in essence the original, it's not to produce again.

---------------

Do you not recognize that how the people behave in Evangelion shows similarities with people in real life?

Similar as in necessary the same?

Anno and staff do not have to be experts in psychology to portray emotions and feelings in an art format - many people are able to portray their feelings in paintings and poems, and have been shown to do so throughout history in the form of artistis, poets, philosophers etc. "There is very little observation possible about psychology inside Eva" - again, you have no argument to back this up. I can write pages on "psychology inside Eva" just from the top of my head. You cannot put Shinji on the sofa - but you can infer his mental processes, which are a reflection of Anno's, from the anime events, using existing frameworks.

Even though considering Anno wasn't the only one writing the scripts? The feelings are more probably a mix of what everyone in the production wanted to put, with their understanding of how a human works. That's not the same as an individual human mind, of course.

I'm not saying they are total opposites or that they don't have points in common. What I'm telling is that there's nothing certain in this. Humans in Eva are not real humans, they are what some people thought humans are when they tried to put them there. People is fallible, those Eva-humans might be different from real humans in their workings. And there's no way to check Eva-humans behave 100% the same as real humans. It's a logical issue that probably cannot be shown in the empiria, but that cannot be ignored for a methodology that expects necessarily correct results inside Eva's canon. Might get correct results in reality, but the problem is that reality is not exactly the same as Eva.

Yes, the only source is Eva, and then we apply frameworks to this source, to get some meaning. I have already pointed out the reasons why applying an external framework is legitimate - these reasons show why it is not a methodological error as it gives results which relate to the fundamental theme of the show. External frameworks are used regularly in the hard sciences to make sense of primary data. So you would call all this a "methodological error" too?

Ok, external frameworks. I'll tell you a story about something that didn't seem to happen in the english Eva discussion world, but did happen in the spanish one. Chamber of Gauf. What is it? External framework: the myth -> the place where all souls from humanity come from. Following this framework, what Ritsuko says in #23 has to mean that everyone born, at least after Rei got her soul (for some other, God punished humans with 2nd Impact by emptying this room), didn't have a soul -> soulless kids.

The only external framework that gives necessary facts inside Evas canon is logic. Without logic we cannot comprehend things. If Eva wasn't logical, then there's no point in looking for a necessary truth: the necessary dissappears without logic.

All methods are correct paths towards their proper end. That's why there are infinite possible correct interpretations. But not all methods are correct paths towards only one particular end. If the end here is to get necessary facts (things that are one way and never another) inside Evas canon, and considering Eva != reality (is not 100% the same), the extra-canon might not apply inside the canon.

[Ornette]

@AA: Yikes, I didn't mean to bring anything up about your particular argument against Adam being female. I just remember a lot of external references, specifically in biology, being thrown around in that area (Seele08 comes to mind for some reason), and I didn't feel like digging around old threads to point out examples, as I didn't think it was all that important. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another, the most immediate concern is when using pronouns, I'd rather use a "he" or "she" rather than "it". I guess I should just use gender neutral ve/vis/ver, but whenever I end up using that in conversation people either think I'm retarded or being pedantic about something.

I'll tell you a story about something that didn't seem to happen in the english Eva discussion world, but did happen in the spanish one. Chamber of Gauf. What is it? External framework: the myth -> the place where all souls from humanity come from. Following this framework, what Ritsuko says in #23 has to mean that everyone born, at least after Rei got her soul (for some other, God punished humans with 2nd Impact by emptying this room), didn't have a soul -> soulless kids.
There was a little bit of this here a while ago, some stuff about the link that the Sensei saying birthrates are down and the Gauf being empty, but I don't think anything as specific as that.

[Reichu]

I guess I should just use gender neutral ve/vis/ver, but whenever I end up using that in conversation people either think I'm retarded or being pedantic about something.
For my part, I could never use "ve" here -- I'm way too committed. ;)

SEELE08 -- blurgh. I remember some of the relevant antics featuring on THAT BOARD, prompting kinglear's "Kaworu kills catgirls" response.

[JFaulkner]

All methods are correct paths towards their proper end. That's why there are infinite possible correct interpretations. But not all methods are correct paths towards only one particular end. If the end here is to get necessary facts (things that are one way and never another) inside Evas canon, and considering Eva != reality (is not 100% the same), the extra-canon might not apply inside the canon.

I would like to give a more detailed argument on why I think some interpretations are more "correct" than others, but I have no time (however, the basic reasons have already been alluded to in my previous posts).

The main point I have tried to make is that using an external framework can give results which are just as valid as those obtained from a "literal analysis." I think my posts have given enough reasons to justify this. However, I leave people to look through all the posts and arguments from everyone, and decide for themselves.


When I first watched all of Eva and the movie, I was left with a powerful impression. It didn't take any analysis for me to get what Anno was trying to say, even before I read his letter from the start of the series production in the Viz manga.
I did not know anything about Evangelion when someone gave it to me to watch. Then, I had a rudimentary knowledge of anything outside the hard sciences. As for you, it still left a powerful impression. [and no, Evangelion was not the major reason I started looking more into "philosophy", sociology etc.]

Either way, whenever you finish writing your analysis of Evangelion using a Jungian framework, I'd be interested in reading it.

There is a good chance it will take me years to finish it, so do not hold your breath.

My original plan, when I was unsure that Jung really had any relation to Evangelion beyond a superficial one (e.g. "Hey, Jung had a private journal called the Red Book!!") was: to forget Evangelion, study all of Jung's Collected Works and some of the more significant associated material (biographies, autobiography, seminar material, papers) and then watch Evangelion again to see if there really are links [I am interested in Jung's works on their own anyway].

But then I found out about "Terminal Dogma: Essays on NGE" through AnimeNation and this thread (which is the reason why I bothered posting here in the first place). I was only about halfway through the CWs, and read some other books and papers. However, after watching some episodes of Evangelion again, I noticed many links connecting Evangelion to Jung. So I thought I could write an essay detailing the main similarities and what this all means, and started writing. But then I had misgivings about submitting it.

Looking back on what I have written, the essay needs to be much more detailed if it is to really detail the meaning of the jargon used for people who are not familiar with Jung, and spell out the reasoning used. 5000 words are not enough. It will pass as some sort of basic outline, but I now want something more detailed.

I am going back to my original plan - forget about Evangelion, read the material mentioned, watch Evangelion again, and then start writing again.

Now I really do not have time to do messageboards anymore.

[AnonymousEvafan]

For my part, I could never use "ve" here -- I'm way too committed. ;)

SEELE08 -- blurgh. I remember some of the relevant antics featuring on THAT BOARD, prompting kinglear's "Kaworu kills catgirls" response.
:lol: You always manage to find the fun ones!

[Leader Desslock]

From my experience on the Internet, it seems to me that very few people ... actually get what a powerful, unifying theme this is, and even fewer care about what a serious issue it is... So as Dr. Nick said, maybe the majority simply care more about Misato's fan service or EVAs crushing things.
As one of the normally silent majority to whom Dr. Nick was likely referring, I find it especially annoying when someone says that I don't "get" Evangelion. This appears to be a conclusion that some people reach when they're told that I've seen Evangelion, but that I don't think it was the penultimate work of our era.

With all due respect, I "got" Evangelion just fine, just as I've "gotten" many other arcane works of literature and film that I've studied over the years. No offense, but Evangelion doesn't even rank up in the top ten most difficult to understand works I've ever studied.

Despite "getting" Evangelion just fine and dandy from my perspective, I've never felt any genuine connection to the work, and I've never considered it that profound a show. Anno went through a lot; he spilled his guts in animated form. A lot of writers and artists have gone through a hell iof a lot more than Anno ever did, and they've done a hell of a lot better job of portraying the process by which they got through it. That's not to say Evangelion's bad. It's an above average work that's certainly worth critical attention; but it doesn't contain the one universal key to common humanity. It's, you know, kind of interesting in its way, and it might resound a bit more with some people than others. That's about it. Academically, I think Evangelion's best purpose is as a study in film technique.

If you'd kindly refrain from the "they just don't GET it" school of Eva fandom, I think your ideas might get a bit more mileage outside the fanboy cult ranks. That's an FYI from a member of the silent majority who really doesn't take well to condescending tones. I really don't care what you want to personally believe, but if you want people like me to listen to any of it, you might want to remember that disagreeing viewpoints and interpretations of Evangelion are perfectly acceptable.

Edit: I'm familiar with Jung, too. Never been a big fan. His observations are fine, but he tends to pull his conclusions right out of his backside.

[Dr. Nick]

Okay, what's going on in this th- oh Jesus what have I started?!?

Well, as a closing comment I have to say that AA and Faulkner's debate seems like one of those "apples and oranges" sort of cases. I apologize if I happen to misrepresent said persons' views here, but it seems to me you guys are talking about two different things: AA says that "only Eva explains Eva", intra-canon. In other words, he's talking about the story's literal dimension, and his assertion is correct: unrelated outside sources can't tell us "what's actually going on" in it.

JFaulkner, on the other hand, is talking about the metatextual level, which is a different thing altogether: he's saying that we can also interpret the show through external frameworks, some frameworks are better suited for this purpose than others, and that by applying a carefully-selected framework greater meaning can be extracted from the story. At least that's what it looks to me. I completely agree with the first two arguments, but I'm still convinced that the third one is wholly subjective.

Maybe I don't use the words "objective" and "subjective" as flexibly as they could be used, but since I'm neither a native speaker of English nor a student of semantics, I will not pursue this point any further. I had some questions I'd wanted to ask Mr. Faulkner, concerning among other things the framework selection process and the way these meta-level interpretations take original artistic intent into account, but oh well, I guess we can return to our scheduled on-topic programming. Sorry about the OT.

[Jabberwok]

stuff~
I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said here.

Interestingly, and this may be over simplifying both viewpoints, but one side seems to me to be saying "This is a story about reality, but is not reality, and one has to keep that in mind," whereas the other is saying "This is not reality, but it is a story about reality, and one has to keep that in mind." Both sound equally correct to me. :shrug:

Objective/subjective, indeed. ^_^

In the end, I'm curious to see what comes out of this project. I like me a little longwinded-geek-speech from time to time.

[Leader Desslock]

^ My viewpoint would be more correctly summed up "It's a semi-allegorical story designed to represent facets of one man's subjective experience, all within the context of a compelling narrative." I don't think Evangelion has much relevance outside that scope.

[Jabberwok]

@Leader:

I was referring specifically to the "Internet Fight" of pages past (no offense to those parties involved, but it was amusing).

I agree with your assessment of the show as well, though. Unless you're Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ or other semi-divine being, any work of fiction you whip up, no matter hard you try to capture the "Human Condition", is going to be far from a 100% accurate representation of reality. Unique snowflakes and all that.

I have somewhat tired of those trying to discover some form of quintessential quality within Eva; it's far from perfect. In the same breath, though, I'll say that as far as external scopes are concerned, if one has any interest at all in human/social psychology, Eva can serve to pique their interest slightly, if only to search for other and more detailed sources.

It's a story, not a bible.

[Reichu]

It's a story, not a bible.
That's not getting into the actual nature of the thing commonly called the Bible -- which, looked at with a purely objective eye, is an anthology of scriptures from Mideastern cultures that's been edited together after the fact, and is every bit a human work riddled with flaws. The centuries upon centuries of attempts to interpret the work into something of absolute perfection and inerrancy could be thought of as a mystified, hyper-charged version of what came to be later done with "less popular" works of fiction, with the shameless antecedent of fanwankery (from solo to massively circle) utterly rampant.

The precursors of fanfiction were amongst apocryphal and mystic texts.

Cosplay? Hmm...

[Jabberwok]

@Reichu:
Interesting. Very interesting.

I did specifically use the lowercase form of the word, but only to address the psychological nitpickings I've observed (not just this thread; this's not an isolated example).

4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.

Yeah, this definition seemed to fit what I was trying to say, though this next one seems to apply to a few too many fans:
3. (often lowercase) the sacred writings of any religion.

Two more things, specifically what I found so bloody interesting about your post. Remind anyone of any message board in particular:
...that's been edited together after the fact, and is every bit a human work riddled with flaws.
:P

And Bible cosplay? December's right around the corner, though regular folk call them 'pageants', not 'cons'. Splitting hairs if you ask me. ^_^

[Magami No ER]

^I think who actually have themselves whiped and crucified intentually(I don't believe fatally) Middle East are what we'd liken to "professional cosplayers who show up the wannabin00bs" everytime.

[JFaulkner]

I actually have had some spare time recently .... won't last though. But here are some replies:

Okay, what's going on in this th- oh Jesus what have I started?!?

Well, as a closing comment I have to say that AA and Faulkner's debate seems like one of those "apples and oranges" sort of cases. I apologize if I happen to misrepresent said persons' views here, but it seems to me you guys are talking about two different things: AA says that "only Eva explains Eva", intra-canon. In other words, he's talking about the story's literal dimension, and his assertion is correct: unrelated outside sources can't tell us "what's actually going on" in it.

I was under the impression, if memory serves, that AA was basically saying anything outside Eva was useless at explaining not just the literal dimension, but its meaning, which is not restricted to its literal dimension.


JFaulkner, on the other hand, is talking about the metatextual level, which is a different thing altogether: he's saying that we can also interpret the show through external frameworks, some frameworks are better suited for this purpose than others, and that by applying a carefully-selected framework greater meaning can be extracted from the story. At least that's what it looks to me. I completely agree with the first two arguments, but I'm still convinced that the third one is wholly subjective.

From my earlier posts, I have tried to show that yes, any interpretation over and above the presented material is going to include an element of subjectivity. But, if one framework offers a meaning which is tied more closely to the presented material and shows links between presented concepts that fits in with the overall themes of the material, then it is better, in that sense, than another framework. Thus, the framework is not "wholly" subjective, because it is linked to the ("objective", in your sense) presented material and does not contradict it; rather it supports it and gives it greater meaning by virtue of the links established through the framework.

This also means there is criteria on which it can be decided which framework is better than another.


I had some questions I'd wanted to ask Mr. Faulkner, concerning among other things the framework selection process and the way these meta-level interpretations take original artistic intent into account, but oh well, I guess we can return to our scheduled on-topic programming. Sorry about the OT.
Now that I'm here, please fire away. If they are complex though, don't expect a quick answer!


As one of the normally silent majority to whom Dr. Nick was likely referring, I find it especially annoying when someone says that I don't "get" Evangelion. This appears to be a conclusion that some people reach when they're told that I've seen Evangelion, but that I don't think it was the penultimate work of our era.

You've conveniently missed out what I said just before. Which part of
"Now, I am not aiming this at anyone here since I am not familiar with this place:" did you not get? My opinion was based on the observation that most threads in the messageboards I have been to (and when I made the comment, that excluded AN because I was only there for about a week), and most of the material on websites I have been to, do not focus enough on what I see to be the core issues, which are the mental processes pertaining to the characters and the actions arising from these.


With all due respect, I "got" Evangelion just fine, just as I've "gotten" many other arcane works of literature and film that I've studied over the years. No offense, but Evangelion doesn't even rank up in the top ten most difficult to understand works I've ever studied.

Despite "getting" Evangelion just fine and dandy from my perspective, I've never felt any genuine connection to the work, and I've never considered it that profound a show. Anno went through a lot; he spilled his guts in animated form. A lot of writers and artists have gone through a hell iof a lot more than Anno ever did, and they've done a hell of a lot better job of portraying the process by which they got through it. That's not to say Evangelion's bad. It's an above average work that's certainly worth critical attention; but it doesn't contain the one universal key to common humanity. It's, you know, kind of interesting in its way, and it might resound a bit more with some people than others. That's about it. Academically, I think Evangelion's best purpose is as a study in film technique.

I totally agree Evangelion is not the most profound piece of work ever, and that it is not the most obscure piece of work by all means - e.g. I would consider works such as "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Nietzsche, "The Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Adorno&Horkheimer and "Christian Discourses and the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air" by Kierkegaard, as well as various religious texts such as the Gospel of Truth and some scientific texts much more difficult to understand.

I also agree that other writers and artists have gone through a hell of a lot more, e.g. Dostoevski and his imprisonment in Siberia. And not just writers and artists, as the hundreds of thousands in Darfur show. But that doesn't make what Anno went through any less painful for him. The fact that there are people worse off than someone doesn't make the pain that someone is in any less real. I agree Evangelion on its own doesn't provide the magic bullet towards eternal enlightenment into the human condition. But it does show some of the processes of the human mind, including aspects which we tend to ignore. Learning about these processes is far more important than film technique, unless you want to be a film maker.

At the end of the day, I'm little interested in where Evangelion is on the scale of "greatness"; I just see it makes interesting points about how people think, and that these are relevant to real life (note: it won't make you into a brand new person, or some wise sage).


If you'd kindly refrain from the "they just don't GET it" school of Eva fandom, I think your ideas might get a bit more mileage outside the fanboy cult ranks. That's an FYI from a member of the silent majority who really doesn't take well to condescending tones. I really don't care what you want to personally believe, but if you want people like me to listen to any of it, you might want to remember that disagreeing viewpoints and interpretations of Evangelion are perfectly acceptable.

Seems like I struck a nerve with you - if you, or other people, get it, then fine. Different viewpoints of Evangelion are certainly acceptable, but it certainly doesn't mean they are of equal validity. My previous posts were a clarification of why I think a certain approach is "better" than some others, in terms of getting at the meaning in Evangelion. If you wish to disagree with me on this point, then look at my arguments and take it from there, rather than erroneously taking offense at one sentence.


Edit: I'm familiar with Jung, too. Never been a big fan. His observations are fine, but he tends to pull his conclusions right out of his backside.

I agree that he makes great exaggerations and unjustified claims in some of his conclusions ("pulls them out of his backside"). Yet I also think he has some important conclusions which do make sense. But it's like this for any author or piece of work. When you subject it to critical thought, the point is to separate the sewage from the gold. But exactly how familiar are you with Jung? Which of his material have you read? I ask because I notice that some works by Jung are more outrageous than others, and it'd be interesting to know which works you have based your view on.


^ My viewpoint would be more correctly summed up "It's a semi-allegorical story designed to represent facets of one man's subjective experience, all within the context of a compelling narrative." I don't think Evangelion has much relevance outside that scope.

That is still quite a wide scope. Because it is based on one man's subjective experience (like certain philosophies are based on one person's experiences), it shows the thought processes of a person, defined uniquely for one particular instance. But you can then try to extract the underlying form of the thought processes, which are applicable to not just Anno Hideaki, but the human mind in general.


I agree with your assessment of the show as well, though. Unless you're Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ or other semi-divine being, any work of fiction you whip up, no matter hard you try to capture the "Human Condition", is going to be far from a 100% accurate representation of reality. Unique snowflakes and all that.

At the other end of the scale, such a work of fiction is hardly going to be a 0% accurate representation of reality. So we can try and interpret it to get that x% to which pertains to reality, or to use the grandiose label, "Human Condition."

More in next post.

[CrossboneGundam]

Are people here seriously suggesting that Evangelion is somehow as significant as religious texts which have influenced thousands of years of human behavior and world history? A Japanese cartoon meant to generate advertising revenue for a TV station and licensing revenue for the animation studio?

[JFaulkner]

Either way, whenever you finish writing your analysis of Evangelion using a Jungian framework, I'd be interested in reading it.

Are you still interested in my theories? If so, and if anyone else is interested, I recently made a post at Animeboards here, which describes some of them very roughly: http://www.animeboards.com/showthread.php?p=537837969#post537837969

The post was made on the spur of the moment, so I wrote most of it from the top of my head. What I've written is even rougher than that unfinished essay I have written. So the point of showing it is just to put a flag on the ground showing that the relevance of Jung, and hence psychoanalysis, to Evangelion is not shallow. Given that I've written this on the fly, it isn't fully referenced to Jung's work, but I have referenced any quotes. It also means that I don't claim the arguments are perfect, so feel free to raise any issues.

I will reproduce the relevant parts of the post here, and in the next post (character limit exceeded):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very rough introduction to Jung:

Jung studied people with mental problems. From his studies, he postulated two mental domains. 1. Consciousness (= ego) - pretty self explanatory. 2. Unconscious - this part consists of repressed (either voluntarily or involuntarily) thoughts and those irrational mental processes which cannot be conceptualized fully in a rational way (and hence perceived by consciousness). Our psyche is the totality of all psychic (mental) processes, and obviously includes both 1 and 2. Analogous to the physical body, the psyche needs energy to function (probably has parallels to nerve impulses). This psychic energy Jung called "Libido" (not to be confused with Freud's usage). Energy can come in different forms (analogous to heat, kinetic etc.) - hence Libido can be found giving rise to conscious or unconscious phenomena. The development of the human mind from that similar to the first human's (through evolutionary history) takes the course of an increasing consciousness - being able to see the big picture, think long-term, form strategies, reason using logic, perceive the whole shebang etc. Thus, Jung conceptualized the unconscious as the original source of Libido and within it there is a store of undifferentiated (not of any form) Libido which can then differentiate and give rise to unconscious and conscious phenomena.

Now, as one's mind becomes more unconscious, we lose some or a lot of conscious control of ourselves - imagine just before going to sleep, swimming until you get really out of breath, being really tired, etc. Thus, Jung uses the phrase that we are like the object to which other people are the subject - that is, we don't feel ourselves in control as the subject, but feel like an object pulled in different directions by forces we cannot control. This led Jung to conceptualize unconscious contents as similar to the "soul." Plato et al. saw the soul as "that which moves itself" - some sort of force of unknown origin. From the preceding consideration, unconscious contents seem to control us from an unknown source, to give a sort of life to inanimate material. Thus, Jung used the word soul, or anima to denote part of the unconscious contents. Now in dreams, fantasies and daydreams, some unconscious contents break out into our consciousness because our threshold of consciousness has been lowered. From his studies, Jung found that images pertaining to one's mother is common. Thus, he associated these mother-images to the anima - the mother symbolizes the anima, because like the anima, the mother is seen as a life-giver (through birth). Now this sounds all a bit pointless, but the raison d'etre is that Jung wanted to interpret dreams, and to do this, he had to conceptualize images according to some framework which render a meaning. And seeing the mother as an unconscious force allowed Jung to postulate a route towards sanity, for people suffering from, or in danger of, schizophrenia. For Jung, schizophrenia means a sort of conscious/unconscious split - think of someone who has lost some sort of conscious reasoning ability and who seems to be governed by unconscious contents beyond his control - one is "not oneself". So the basic idea is that these cases occur because his patients are running away from something which is hidden in their unconscious - these unconscious contents can become energetic enough to disturb our consciousness; thus, we need to dredge them out and forge them into our conscious way of life. Dreams help to resolve the conflict, because say, you had dreamt about a long series of mother images. This shows that your unconscious activity is overflowing, and that indicates you might be heading towards schizophrenia, because you are hiding a hell of a lot of baggage in your unconscious. Thus, in a dream, if one escapes from this "devouring mother," perhaps with a rebirth through her womb, then this signifies that one is at last free from the binds of the unconscious. Jung saw many parallels with dreams such as these and myths of yore. Thus, the somewhat cryptic sentence by Jung "I took it upon myself to get to know "my" myth, and I regarded this as the task of tasks" (http://www.animeboards.com/showthread.php?p=537837802#post537837802 ) - that is, he wanted to get to know his unconscious contents, to get a better idea of his whole psyche.

Now onto Evangelion.


Propositions:
The Evangelions represent the unconscious, LCL represents the Libido, the soul inside EVA-01 represents part of Shinji's anima, the soul inside EVA-02 represents Asuka's anima, Rei is part of Shinji's anima, Eva-00 has no resident soul and AT Field represents barrier between consciousness and unconscious.

Rough argument
Eva-01 and Eva-02 have the souls of Shinji and Asuka's mothers. Soul (or anima) is what Jung uses to refer to unconscious contents, and thus, which of the two mothers is present tells you whose unconscious each refers to. LCL is a fluid, dynamic, undifferentiated liquid-like substance, just like Libido in its undifferentiated state. Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido, which, as per above, resides in the unconscious (and thus, the Evangelion symbolizes the unconscious as a whole). Also, it has been referred to as the "soup of life" in Eva, and undifferentiated Libido is like the source of all our psychic activities ("life"). There is also a remarkable passage in Jung's Collected Works Part 9 (i) (PG21-2) - here Jung is describing what the unconscious is like [my italics, bold lettering and numbering]:


"a boundless expanse full of unprecedented uncertainty, with apparently no inside and no outside, no above and no below, no here and no there, no mine and no thine, no good and no bad. It is the world of water (1) , where all life floats in suspension; where .... the soul of everything living, begins (2) ; where I am indivisibly this and that; where I experience the other in myself and the other-than-myself experiences me (3) ....

There I am utterly one with the world (4) , so much a part of it that I forget all too easily who I really am. "Lost in oneself" is a good way of describing this state. But this self is the world, if only a consciousness could see it. (5) "


Compare this with what Rei drones out in EoE [my italics, bold lettering and numbering]:


"Shinji:
Ayanami - where are we?

Rei:
This is the sea of LCL (1) - The primordial soup of life (2).
A world without AT Fields - without your own shape.
An ambiguous world where it is impossible to tell where you end and other people start.
A fragile world where you exist everywhere, and thus exist nowhere. (3)

Shinji:
Have I died?

Rei:
No, everything has just been joined into one (4) .
This is the world you have been hoping for... your world. (5) "

I've paired off sections which are similar using numbers. The similarities are so striking that I don't even need to point them out. This shows in clear fashion, that there are real similarities to Jung. This is also why I am interested to see what Jung material Anno has read. The point of the comparison is to show that Jung's Libido ("water") equates to LCL, and further, if the AT Fields are lost, then we are left with a collapse of consciousness (similar to that seen in schizophrenia - which argues for the case that Shinji suffered from this - must stress Jung's definition of schizophrenia, not the modern one), and we are left wallowing in our unconscious thoughts (the soup of life or whatever the hell you want to call it).

Other evidence for AT-Field being barrier between consciousness and unconscious: Evangelions exhibit an AT-Field to separate it from the outside (consciously perceived) world. When Third Impact occurs, AT-Fields are dissolved and Maya, Hyuga and Fuyutsuki's personal unconscious wishes were manifest, before they all explode into undifferentiated (i.e. non-personal) LCL (i.e. consciousness slowly deteriorates). Third Impact is the dissolution of consciousness into the unconscious, by the breakdown of the barrier between them. Notice how the characters were all forced to confront all the thoughts they have stashed away in the unconscious in both series and movie endings. So:

Consciousness (=Ego) | Unconscious;
| = AT Field

Also note that Shinji popping back up from the sea of LCL and saying goodbye to mother is an obvious example of a rebirth-myth (return to "sanity").

[JFaulkner]

(cont. from previous post)

Now why is Rei part of Shinji's anima - well we have Yui' s soul is Shinji's anima, but in this framework, this anima is incomplete. Rei is the missing part, and Rei resembles Yui and has the soul of Lilith (Red Cross Book - note that Jung also had a book called the "Red Book," whether this is of any relevance or not is another thing). Lilith is a generic life-source, from which we immediately see the resemblance to undifferentiated Libido, from which we see that Rei is a mixture of the conscious Yui and a generic unconscious part. This points to Rei being another mother-image, although representing contents which are slightly more conscious than the contents represented by Yui's soul, because of the conscious body. Also, having a generic unconscious part (or soul), Rei can synch with EVA-00 even if it has no resident soul (i.e. EVA-00 symbolizes an unconscious not designated to any particular person), and being part of Shinji's anima, she can synch with EVA-01 as well. Ramifications: EVA-00 going berserk is due to the influence of Yui in Rei through the generic unconscious (i.e. Shinji's unconscious), and Ritsuko thinking EVA-00 is after her is probably due to her guilt rather than EVA-00 aiming for her (unless the young Shinji saw something indecent or something concerning Ritsuko).*** Also, I think there is an argument for the case that since Rei has a generic unconscious part in Yui's body, she needs to align this generic unconscious part to Yui's consciousness and thus realize that she is part of Shinji's psyche - which she does eventually and "Becomes one" with Shinji to complete his psyche and return to sanity (a hieros gamos or "holy wedding") - so Shinji must get to know his unconscious and Rei (Shinji's unconscious) needs to get to know his consciousness; they meet in the middle to the delight of everyone (series ending).

As for the prominence of 3's (and even 4's) and the cross motif, I think I can explain these using this framework as well. Also, there's probably more fun and games explaining the other character and Eva actions using this framework. But I'll leave this for the future.

***[EDIT] Need here to explain why Shinji could synch with EVA-00. Possibility that Rei's soul (derived or of Lilith, with hints of Yui) is so strong that it has left an aura in EVA-00 for Shinji to synch with. This aura then starts to fade, such that Shinji's consciousness might become subsumed by the LCL (undifferentiated Libido) because the path to consciousness, as provided by the aura of Rei's soul, is lost. Psychological contamination occurs and EVA-00 goes berserk. This sounds convoluted, so I may think about EVA-00 having some sort of soul derived from Lillith or something in the future. This wouldn't change the other conclusions reached in this post.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
Jungian framework used to explain some of the symbols in Evangelion. By doing so, the events in Evangelion can be related to the workings of the human psyche and hence our world and the phenomena of mental "illness". More broadly, it shows the dangers of chucking everything we don't like in our unconscious and not facing up to them, something which we can all fall into. What I've written here is not detailed and fully referenced, but just getting some ideas floating around in my head down.

I conjecture that what Anno really tried to show in this anime is what he went through in his mental breakdown, in symbolic form: e.g. famous Anno quote [my italics and bold lettering]:

"I tried to include everything of myself in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- myself, a broken man who could do nothing for four years.

A man who ran away for four years, one who was simply not dead.

Then one thought:

"You can't run away,"

came to me, and I restarted this production.

It is a production where my only thought was to burn my feelings into film.

....

That is because within me, the story is not yet finished."

The story is within him. Thus, it represents part of his psyche. It is his myth, which he has found and is living, just like Shinji (Anno's avatar) must find and live his myth (see Jung quote above and lyrics to theme song). I think that

Evangelion is the myth of Anno in anime form

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dan]

So did this book ever happen?

[JFaulkner]

Are people here seriously suggesting that Evangelion is somehow as significant as religious texts which have influenced thousands of years of human behavior and world history? A Japanese cartoon meant to generate advertising revenue for a TV station and licensing revenue for the animation studio?
Depends on what you mean by "significance". If by "significant," you mean that something has influenced world leaders and altered the course of history, then religious texts are more significant. If by "significant," you mean that something has something important to say about how humans act and behave, then it depends on which religious text you read. Evangelion, in my opinion, is "significant" in the latter sense. At the same time as generating cash (and God knows how much merchandise there is out for it), Anno Hideaki tried to show what he felt in his time of mental distress, in the anime. Now this isn't a statement proclaiming Evangelion to be a wonderful piece of majestic art, and only it can give the true insight into human behaviour. It just states that one can deduce aspects of human behaviour and thought from the Evangelion anime.

[Shiroiyuki]

Are people here seriously suggesting that Evangelion is somehow as significant as religious texts which have influenced thousands of years of human behavior and world history?

Yep, I guess so. This is what I've gathered from reading...oh....100 or so posts around this forum in search of a few questions I had on this subject.


A Japanese cartoon meant to generate advertising revenue for a TV station and licensing revenue for the animation studio?

EXACTLY. You'd think if there were secret religious undertones that were meant to be 'solved' and 'figured out' like a puzzle, Anno would have put them in a different medium (say, a book perhaps), rather than an anime aimed at 14 year old fangirls (stereotyping here, but seriously...anime....at least here in America it attracts children mostly). If it was proven that important religious undertones could be found in Eva, wouldn't it make more sense to put that information into a medium where your core demographic WASN'T 14-17 year old children? What's a child going to do with this sort of information? Will he/she comprehend, understand, value, or know what to do with such knowledge?

There have been anime with much more prominent religious undertones, yet they are not dissected with such fever and vehemence towards the medium as NGE is. Why is Evangelion so important to overanalyze to death? What do you hope to gain by scrutinizing every last detail of the show? Why put it under a microscope, why not just enjoy it for the entertainment value it presents?

[Dan]

Are people here seriously suggesting that Evangelion is somehow as significant as religious texts which have influenced thousands of years of human behavior and world history?

Its a shame when it turns out that way. Although no religous, there is more than enough antropologic and social scientific information we can glean from it as a representation of its time and place.

[Reichu]

You'd think if there were secret religious undertones that were meant to be 'solved' and 'figured out' like a puzzle
You're blowing the "secret religious undertones" part WAYYYYY out of proportion. Drawing from religious sources was done to give NGE an "identity", let the creators practice excessive pedantry, and provide context to the narrative (religious cult of old geezers who pull the puppet-strings of the world, etc.). The end.

Anno would have put them in a different medium (say, a book perhaps), rather than an anime aimed at 14 year old fangirls
Animation was the natural medium for Anno to use, considering he has a background in animation and otakudom.

(stereotyping here, but seriously...anime....at least here in America it attracts children mostly).
In Japan, anime is essentially "children and otaku only". With NGE, Anno and the others hoped to revolutionize the industry and break it out of the niche it had regrettably settled into, but...

Why is Evangelion so important to overanalyze to death? What do you hope to gain by scrutinizing every last detail of the show? Why put it under a microscope, why not just enjoy it for the entertainment value it presents?
Because not everyone would be satisfied to leave it at that. (http://animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=190326)

If you don't have a streak of "geek" in you, then odds are it will never, ever make sense.

[Ornette]

That was in no way my intent. I was trying to figure out what fuels the phenomenon, why Evangelion is so popular, why people analyze it so fervently. I am not criticizing anyone for watching/enjoying the show; I am trying to understand why so many flock to Eva and hold it in such high regard/examine its details/analyze everything/etc.

For example:
And the Understatement of the Year Award goes to....


You...you guys do remember that this is just an anime, right? I'm not flaming here (please don't think that. I'm only curious as to why), but from time to time I notice how deeply everyone digs into this anime, examining and scrutinizing every single last detail like it was a matter of life or death. From symbols used, to what the ending actually meant, to the inner psyche of the characters and how that corresponds to the bible....pretty much everything in this anime has been beaten to death by research, opinion, and reasoning.

Yep, I guess so. This is what I've gathered from reading...oh....100 or so posts around this forum in search of a few questions I had on this subject.



EXACTLY. You'd think if there were secret religious undertones that were meant to be 'solved' and 'figured out' like a puzzle, Anno would have put them in a different medium (say, a book perhaps), rather than an anime aimed at 14 year old fangirls (stereotyping here, but seriously...anime....at least here in America it attracts children mostly). If it was proven that important religious undertones could be found in Eva, wouldn't it make more sense to put that information into a medium where your core demographic WASN'T 14-17 year old children? What's a child going to do with this sort of information? Will he/she comprehend, understand, value, or know what to do with such knowledge?

There have been anime with much more prominent religious undertones, yet they are not dissected with such fever and vehemence towards the medium as NGE is. Why is Evangelion so important to overanalyze to death? What do you hope to gain by scrutinizing every last detail of the show? Why put it under a microscope, why not just enjoy it for the entertainment value it presents?
When people automatically assume we're crazy and we think there are "secret religious undertones" we're trying to solve here, and it happens over and over again and has already been discussed in previous threads, some people get tired of rehashing the same arguments. Reichu linked to a thread where Leader Desslock asked (in a more eloquent manner) what you were asking. But I can understand where you're coming from. I've seen rabid fans on forums before, and even I think they're crazy. However, I think most of those people who freak out anytime someone says Eva isn't the greatest thing in the world have left the ANF boards and not much heavy discussion has happened here for about a year.

Either way, I'm glad someone was able to adequately answer your question.

[Shiroiyuki]

For example:
I have a very dry sense of humor. I thought the 'And the Understatement of the Year Award goes to...' bit was very fitting, considering how often people scrutinize every little detail in Evangelion. He asked if he was examining too much into something, I saw an opportunity to segue into my question. I never actually insulted anyone, or at least, didn't intend to insult anyone; I just saw an opportunity there. If you took it to mean something else, I’m sorry.

And about the rest: Probing for answers is no good unless you specifically tell what you are interested in learning about (i.e. ...but from time to time I notice how deeply everyone digs into this anime, examining and scrutinizing every single last detail like it was a matter of life or death...Why is Evangelion so important to overanalyze to death? What do you hope to gain by scrutinizing every last detail of the show? Why put it under a microscope, why not just enjoy it for the entertainment value it presents?) and go from there. Sure, I could have just asked 'Why Eva?', but that wouldn't have reaped anything besides generic, curt answers that probably wouldn’t have helped me at all. Like 'Because, we like it' or 'Eva is awesome, it’s very deep'. Yes, because that would have answered my questions. I got specific, I aimed for the jugular. I didn't just ask some watered down general question hoping to get the answers I was looking for. I thought it was the best approach.


When people automatically assume we're crazy and we think there are "secret religious undertones" we're trying to solve here, and it happens over and over again and has already been discussed in previous threads, some people get tired of rehashing the same arguments.
Like I said in another post of mine, all experiences with Eva fans and discussions on the topic have included allusions to religious aspects ‘hidden’ within the context of Evangelion. I formed a bias over time, as stated in another thread. I assumed, since this had not just happened the one time but every time, that most Evangelion fans also thought this way, and this was a driving force to the phenomenon. Instead, as I found out from JFaulker and his responses, I was mistaking the whole of Eva Fandom for very radical rarities amongst the group. I never said I thought anyone was crazy; I simply gave you rough examples of my perspective (seasoned by what I have learned/gathered in the past from listening in on Eva discussions) and asked why from you fans (who appeared to be quite devoted, discussing symbols in the anime and their meaning).


Reichu linked to a thread where Leader Desslock asked (in a more eloquent manner) what you were asking.
I don't believe in thread necromancy, and seeing how all those topics had been dead for at least a year or so, I didn't feel the need to revive them for this cause. Actually, Bernard Monsha, one of our moderators, even frowns on reviving dead threads. I wanted answers, and after reading around 100 or so posts in both threads (100 or so spanning the two threads, I don't remember how far I got in each respected thread before giving up my futile search), I discovered that the posts there didn't really answer any of the questions I was asking, or had in mind. The posts there were generic for the most part, they didn't go into detail, and they danced around the topic at hand. I felt the need to continue my quest for knowledge elsewhere.


However, I think most of those people who freak out anytime someone says Eva isn't the greatest thing in the world have left the ANF boards and not much heavy discussion has happened here for about a year.
Well, I guess that's a shame in its own right. Not that those people would have been a great help to me, seeing as they 'freaked out' when asked about Eva (from a non-fan's perspective), but it would have been interesting to see their arguments as well.

Either way, I'm glad someone was able to adequately answer your question.
Me too ^_^.

[Ornette]

I have a very dry sense of humor. I thought the 'And the Understatement of the Year Award goes to...' bit was very fitting, considering how often people scrutinize every little detail in Evangelion. He asked if he was examining too much into something, I saw an opportunity to segue into my question. I never actually insulted anyone, or at least, didn't intend to insult anyone; I just saw an opportunity there. If you took it to mean something else, I’m sorry.
I didn't think anything you said was insulting anyone in particular, just that I've seen and participated in threads where someone asks something similar from the point of view that we don't think we're watching just an anime anymore and it was a matter of life and death that we analyze these things. 9 out of 10 times, it turns into a flame war, where people are just insulting others about the stupidest things, or it turns out that the person just hates Eva or Eva-fans, was just trolling and never really cared about the answers to their questions. Fortunately, stuff like that doesn't happen very often on ANF. I'm not accusing you of being one of these people, just that I didn't know who you were and that was my first impression. I suppose part of that is my fault, for having witnessed threads like that countless times in the past and being fairly used to non-fans thinking that I'm crazy.

Oh, and I didn't think the humor part was wrong. I just didn't bother to edit the quoted parts.