Not a reader of Hillman, but his ideas seem familiar and present in other philosophies, so I’ll take a shot at it.
Hillman-- “Polytheistic psychology refers to the inherent dissociability of the psyche and the location of consciousness in multiple figures and centers.â€
Rather than inherent I would say “apparent”. Ofr course, I would like to better understand what he means by “psyche” and how words like “centers” and “figures” apply to a subject so prone to misgivings as psychology. I will continue on but not before saying that it seems logically necessary that the self is divided, perhaps because experience itself and the senses and time collaborate to prevent a true unity not only of the subjects outer environs but his inner environs as well. However, it seems to me that the role of the self is to impose unity on what is disperse and thus would argue that the psyche is, from my pov, is inherently social, not dissocial.
Hillman-- “What we learn from dreams is what psychic nature really is – the nature of psychic reality: not I but we; not one but many. Not monotheistic consciousness looking down from the mountain, but polytheistic consciousness wandering all over the place, in the vales and along rivers, in the woods, the sky and under the earth.â€
I think that Hillman is writing here ancient views and confidence of freudians that dreams are “what psychic nature really is”. Even now it sounds strange to speak of dreams as “really” since often reality is contrasted to dreams. This confidence seems misplaced since we may discuss about what dreams are like–but we are not always dreaming. Now a dream is dissociable, I agree, and apart from lucid dreamers most of humanity is prey of dreams. Dreams can be crippling and nightmares can weaken one after in the light of day. But when we are not dreaming, in our practical life, we have a social sense of self. I may act different at work, at home at church, with my child, with my wife, with my boss or with a stranger. But all these aspects of my self are sociable with one another and merge into my idea of my-self.
Hillman- “Polytheism, which many call a heresy, implies radical relativism…”
Not at all, as Socrates found out.
X- In other words the idea that there are multiple perspectives that are all correct. A heresy indeed in both science and theology.
There is a hiearchy within pantheons of gods. Zeus is the most potent god of Olympus, and rules the other gods. I am not saying that the gods are not gods but that in relation man they are gods but in relation to Zeus, what can they be?
And let’s not discriminate or divide so sharply what is closely nit. For example, monotheism is not as monotheistic as you imagine. God is the “God of Host”. He rules amongst powerful beings; opposed by a powerful Acuser who is served by his own evil army; has a son—are these things that could not be said of Zeus?
Hillman-- “…myths offer the multiplicity of meanings inherent in our lives, while theology and science attempt singleness of meaning. Perhaps this is why mythology is the mode of speaking religion in polytheistic consciousness, and why monotheistic consciousness writes down theology. Polytheistic consciousness is ever reminded by myth of the ambiguity of meanings and the multiplicity of persons in each even in each moment.â€
Mythology and theology…are they really different? Could we not say that theology is but a sublime mythology? If you take Genesis, for example, what is that but mythopoetic consciousness revealed?! I still do not see this sharp distinction and perhaps it is because there isn’t any and the author is forcing it in place to:
1- advance a theory.
2- weaken a ghost of ages past, just like Nietzsche and Freud and in a way even Jung.
The choir to this comedy is that monotheism is bad and polytheism is good as a guide to the real psyche of man and that seems far from demonstrated historically.
Hillman-- “This means nothing less than dethroning the dominate fantasy ruling our view of the world as ultimately a unity – the real meaning, real beauty and truth require a unified vision. It also means that we would abandon a notion of our personality as ultimately a unity of self.â€
What is beautiful? What is true? What you and I agree on as being true or beautiful-- that is unity of voice, of opinion. Meaning is obtained when we can agree on an acceptable definition. The dictionary would be an impossibility is a provisional conscensus could not be reached. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not in diversity that we get meaning, beauty and truth but in agreements and conscensus. I am not defending the dominant fantasy here but to point out that domination is itself a fantansy when imagined as the result of the effort and tyranny of one. Domination occurs by majority. So we should always ask what is the alternative to the dominant view. Why is it dominant? Why this rather than other views? etc…
Hillman-- “And with the departing dominant unitary fantasy would go as well its dominant emotion: lonelinessâ€
I do have this book at home waiting for me to open it and read it. I will eventually and perhaps then I will see better what he means. I cannot say now why loneliness is believed by him to be the chief emotion–it seems contrary to my experience and written history. But I hope my post gives you an antagonistic view rather than flattery and agreement.