The Myth in The Movie "The NeverEnding Story"

[Nymph]

Has anyone watched the movie "The NeverEnding Story"?
The story revolves around the main antagonist, the Emptiness that threatens to destroy this world called Fantasia. I've only watched the second movie (very recently), and it says at the end:
"The emptiness cannot be destroyed. It had to be filled with love."
I find that quote interesting. I wonder if it's somehow comparable to Ti's void. It's striking how according to Buddhism, the nature of everything is found to be empty, and that the world and the self are constituted of "maya", a fantasy. In the quote, the protagonist seems to be doing the opposite of what Buddhists are trying to achieve--to realize the nature of emptiness. Is the "love" described here represents the Fi side of truth? They might manifest as two opposing forces in the same fundamental truth of reality.
To bring light to another possibility, let's for a second wonder how emptiness might manifest in Te psyche instead of Ti. This is very anecdotal, but I have seen a Te-lead who describes his inner self as "empty"--not truly empty, it'd be more accurately described as inaccessible--because trying to go inward induces his traumatic pain from childhood. In effect, he has to always look to the other way, until he eventually lost that inner self. This is what is felt as "empty". So maybe the quote is the Te version of emptiness caused by traumatic childhood, which in this myth is then filled with love from Fi function. That emptiness is felt as dysfunctional, quite different from the emptiness that Ti lead had described as simply their natural way of being... whatever that means.
Maybe this is the difference between the two axes. The natural way of being of one axis is felt as dysfunctional by the other. I also somewhat feel that this has often been implied in how Auburn described the functions. Maybe I'm wrong, but the myth in that movie is interesting nonetheless... I guess I don't really have any question with this post, but let me know if you have any thoughts.

[sekundaer]

Interesting reflections. I saw the first movie and read the book at the time they came out. You should see the first movie, that is definitely the best. Its very true what you say that it is like the opposite of buddhism. At that time in my youth I was very inspired by a spiritual teacher who meant that the book was inspired by spiritual truth, like also Lord of the Rings. For him spirituality was more about creating the right thought forms and not at all about stepping beyond thoughts into the nothingness. But stepping beyond destructive thoughts and into fantasyland with no limits. When I look back, and when I look at the New Age movement that I see is having it's second wave now, I see something that reminds me of Fi (Fi+Ne). Those of my friends from that time who are still fantasizing while I try to empty my mind they all have Fi vultology. Its interesting if there is some kind of circuit with Ti as the search for the source, the transcendent field of pure awareness or emptiness, and Fi as the drive to express and be guided by some essence or nature. I say circuit because it cannot be so that emptiness is only for Ti people (and elves, rainbows and Mary Poppins is only for Fi´s). It might be that Ti and Fi need each other to find the right balance between sterile and airy fairy, between categorizing and the symbolic - so that it is not really opposing forces, although it can be at some level.
And yes, I have also seen that fear of the emptiness in people who seem extreme Te or an inability to access it, jumping prematurely into action of some sort. But that fear I have also had, where it was a fear of dying. I think what you describe about the Te-lead is pretty universal. Just as I think the experience of emptiness is universal - although I could imagine that Fi-users would prefer to call it the Absolute.
(BTW- Michael Ende seems Ti/Fe to me, there is an interview with him at youtube)

[Ash Rose]

The Neverending story is basically my bible. I grew up with the first movie and must have watched it a thousand times by now. The second movie tries to continue the story similarly to how it develops in the book from where the first movie left off. I must have read the book at least 5 times or so.
It’s interesting that you suggested the story is anti-Buddhist. I’ve never thought about it that way before, but it makes perfect sense. I don’t want to offend any Buddhists out there because I think it’s been extremely helpful to a lot of people I know, but the part in Buddhism about letting go of the ego has always disturbed me a bit. Maybe I’m completely ignorant to what this actually is supposed to mean, but from what I’ve gathered it seems like without a solid ego, you’re left without an inner compass and vulnerable to manipulation and control.
In the first movie of the NES, Atreyu, the child warrior who is sent to fight against the Nothing, meets G’mork, a giant wolf who is the servant of the Nothing and was sent to destroy Atreyu. G’mork doesn’t recognize Atreyu, so they have a conversation knowing it may be their last as the Nothing is destroying everything all around them.
Atreyu asks G’mork, “what is the Nothing?”
Gmork says, “it’s the emptiness that’s left. It is like a despair destroying this world (the world of human fantasy). And I have been trying to help it.
Because people who have no hopes are easy to control. And those who have the control have the power.”
The story is filled with delicious metaphors for basically every aspect of life, so I’m all for having the Nothing represent the Ti void. It may also represent suppression of Ji in general when the Je demands of society compel us to sacrifice our inner castles and ivory towers for the economic mechanics or moral duties we must uphold. Maybe that’s all more relevant to the Gravitic tendencies of Fe/Ti.
Just watched a couple of Michael Ende interviews and I think he may be FeNi.

[Rua]

There are some very interesting ideas here.

Maybe I’m completely ignorant to what this actually is supposed to mean, but from what I’ve gathered it seems like without a solid ego, you’re left without an inner compass and vulnerable to manipulation and control.

I have a much different conception of this. I'm no longer a Buddhist myself (I no longer believe Nirvana is an ultimate goal), but I still find that Buddhism has some incredibly useful ideas and techniques. To my mind, the concerning part about being ego-less is not that it makes one susceptible to manipulation. It's the other side of the non-ego coin that I think is disturbing. There's no longer a desire to strive towards anything (no hopes or expectations), so there's no leverage by which an egoless someone can be manipulated. But there is also nothing acting upon a person, from within or without, that moves them into the beauty of action. There is no intense feeling of love, or accomplishment, or the release that comes from suffering to achieve a goal that's incredibly important to yourself (ego). This ties in rather nicely with the quote from G'mork,

Because people who have no hopes are easy to control. And those who have the control have the power.

From my perspective that is almost the opposite of the truth. I have a feeling that what the artist intended is to tie hope together with fantasy, and in that case yes, people that are closed off from their imaginations end up being controlled by anything or anyone (including themselves) that pushes an expectation of behavior onto them. And I am in complete agreement that imagination is one of the most vital and indispensable qualities of a fulfilling life.
A hope is an expectation of something positive, and they make excellent tools for controlling yourself or being controlled. Controlling yourself in some dimension(s) can be deeply unhealthy (an inner voice that tells you to starve yourself), just as being controlled can be incredibly healthy if it's consensual and targeting an important personal goal.
The psychological profile of a cult member is someone with incredibly potent (and overwhelming conceptualizations of) hopes and spiritual feelings, but who has encountered failure in the attempts to attain those hopes. This manifests as a powerful desire to adopt the structural beliefs of someone that seems possessed of enlightenment and the complete confidence to give the seeker all that they have failed to give themselves. The idea of cult members as mindless zombies or vessels waiting to be filled is a gross misconception; they typically have very high levels of energy and motivation, when it's being channeled towards an absurdly lofty, unhealthy expectation or spiritual hope. When those hopes aren't met, darkness occupies the space the hopes couldn't fill. Eagerly seeking for ultimate deliverance, and being completely unwilling to wait around for purpose, the cultist actively searches for an elevator in a spiritual fathom.

[sekundaer]

"..without a solid ego, you’re left without an inner compass and vulnerable to manipulation and control"
Just a little comment to that. The term "ego" can be mean different things, the buddhist is not aiming towards losing the freudian ego (The Buddha showed a lot of ego strength when he triumphed over Mara - the devil in buddhistic mythology). If looking through a freudian lens, its actually more the 'id' and the superego that the buddhist wants to rid him/herself of. One main hindrance for attaining the goal is 'sensual desires' which is what the id as the  bubbling cauldron of desire is composed of. Also remorse and doubt are major hindrances, just like the superego is one of the hindrances that one must overcome in a psychoanalysis - and this goes hand in hand with strengthening the ego, which is the organizing and realistic aspect of the psyche. There is no ideal of giving this up in buddhism, rather one is trying to become more skillful and cultivate a healthy understanding, increase the ability to concentrate and being mindful in ones daily life. The "ego" that the buddhist wants to give up, is the idea that there is a "self", but strengths and values can remain without the illusion of a self and even to a higher degree.
This is traditional buddhism and there are many later schools that would frame it somehow different.
The term "emptiness" is very hard to grasp - it is not "nothingness", its about being empty of "self", so from the point of view of the self it will be nothing.
There once was a meeting between Jung and a zen master. Jung was not satisfied with the dialogue so it was not published at the time, but there is a transcript to be found. What was obvious to me when I read it was that Jung did not understand what the zen master was talking about. He seemed to think that the zen master talked about something similar to Jung's collective consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a concept in Jungian psychology for awareness itself. Jung didn't believe that one could talk about "pure awareness". He even often warned against the eastern paths. His thinking was about the content of awareness, not of awareness as the context.
Maybe The Neverending Story would not make sense to people of the east, just as the zen masters main points did not make sense to Jung.

[Nymph]

Okay, I'm putting the first movie into my watch list (coming to Netflix).
In general, I've always thought that there seems to be a stern contrast between Western and Eastern theological concepts, but didn't associate it with types. When I watched this movie and saw this character, the Childlike Empress (whose quote was being mentioned in OP), it immediately reminded me of Seelie Fi(+Ne, I'm not sure if she's Pe-dom). It's been agreed that Fi has some Germanic mythological components injected into it. What's interesting is Norse mythology actually seems to be different compared to other world mythologies in regard to their gods and the naming, the origin of mankind, etc. The word "God" and "Devil" itself is more Germanic, the latter is superficially similar to the "divine", "Deva" from Sanskrit, "Deus" from Greek, and so on. So somewhere in the path there could be some separation or merging of concepts happening in there. I found an interesting article about it: https://kenyonreview.org/2020/12/devi-vs-devil-etymological-musings/

But that fear I have also had, where it was a fear of dying. I think what you describe about the Te-lead is pretty universal. Just as I think the experience of emptiness is universal – although I could imagine that Fi-users would prefer to call it the Absolute.

I used to not be afraid of death, but one confusing incidence had grown that fear in me also. I secretly also think that this emptiness is universal and feel like I've been there from time to time, but it's impossible to prove and know for sure.
I prefer to see these axes as phenomenological rather than genetic--the latter would imply that 1) these axes only coincidentally came to be via mutation, 2) any new axis can appear indefinitely where introversion and extroversion would no longer make sense, and 3) any one of them can somehow be eradicated from earth, which means this is not the kind of psychological phenomena that simply must emerge by law. This might be true and all, but this isn't really what I'm looking to find out. I know there's a twin study that proves it is genetic, but the kind of genetic I mean is inherited. For example, if your eyes are blue, it doesn't necessarily mean your other sibling's eyes are too, although your twin definitely is. Twins having the same genes doesn't necessarily mean that other relatives go through the same process. So it maybe genetic, but there's still a chance of it not being biologically inherited genotype. Correct me if I'm wrong.

the part in Buddhism about letting go of the ego has always disturbed me a bit. Maybe I’m completely ignorant to what this actually is supposed to mean, but from what I’ve gathered it seems like without a solid ego, you’re left without an inner compass and vulnerable to manipulation and control.

In Buddhism, ego might be synonymous with the concept of the self. There's a whole load of things associated with this concept, and it's talked about in Abhidharma (one category of the Buddhist scriptures used as a comprehensive ontological and psychological guide). What sekundaer said about it being related to Freudian id and superego makes sense, although I don't think it is an eye to eye correlation. There is this concept of triviṣa, or the three poisons which are ignorance, attachment, and aversion. The first poison, ignorance, could be related to Freudian ego (concept of self and its residuals) where one has a wrong view and understanding. The other two, attachment and aversion, might be more or less related to id and superego. There's still a lot of Buddhist ethical precepts that one must adhere to, which could be construed as pertaining in the domain of superego. I can see how this looks like you're replacing your inner compass with something else.
And Rua, that's an interesting take on hope and fantasy. I think what you view as egoless state is probably more Theravada-ish which can be very by-the-book. Mahayana, which also includes Zen Buddhism, seems primarily driven by a love for humanity although it also looks at things from the lens of an egoless state. This is what the West has mostly been following.
Thank you everyone for these interesting insights.

[unknown]

I read a book as a kid and watched movies then. The first book I bought in my life actually. 😀

“The emptiness cannot be destroyed. It had to be filled with love.”

Great quote. This and whole story is a metaphor of enthropy for me. I met some thougt in buddhism:

"Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form"

This could be equalivement between this story and buddhism philosophy. Emptiness and form go together. There isn't one without the other. To create fiction is to bring order and meaning to the life that can go against entrophy. To recognise nature of the world is different dimention than nature of life. If you alive you have to create fiction, this is what is life about. My point is ilustrated by example of patients ill from deppresion. As research shows people who suffered from deppresion often have very realistic and rational view on life. What they lack is a "positive ficions" that keep us going. I read about this in some therapy textbook.

[unknown]

I don't know how this is ralate to cognitive function in straightforward manner. I know Auburn wrote something about buddhism zen and Ti but I don't understand that concept yet. Maybe someone help to explain it?

[Nymph]

Are you asking about the concept of Zen or its relation to Ti? I think Zen is associated with Ti because of its default neutral attitude on things, which I imagine creates this experience of tranquility.
But if I may, I think Fi can be pretty neutral too. Maybe the difference is, in my case, I have these pockets of worldviews from which I can switch and see things according to how you want to take it. This mental neutrality has nothing to do with my decisions on the whim. I'm not completely devoid of my preferences, I still have that streak of weird randomness when it comes. Is that the difference?
It seems to me Zen attitude requires some amount of Pi into it, but cmiiw.

[unknown]

Being divorced from external happenings, its operation in data discrimination, instead, turns purely to the conceptual. Its impetus drives it naturally toward a convergence of concepts and the formation of a perfect, internally consistent logic. As it removes itself from the material and the personal, it is no surprise then that individuals with Ti often re-discover the philosophy of Zen with every passing generation, as this is a natural mode of operation for this process.

Zen
The internal experience of Ti is a deeply paradoxical one. Due to the combination of dispassion within an introverted function, the process of introspection leads the individual into a realm where absence is found at the very center of its existence.
There is a feeling of deeper separation from the self, proportional to the level of internal intimacy one achieves. It would seem, to a Ti user, that at their very soul there is fundamentally only nothingness; the Śūnyatā of Zen Buddhism. Similar to how Anglo-Saxon mythology is, in many ways, an expression and anthropomorphization of the character of Fi, we may consider Zen Buddhism to be a philosophy fundamentally generated by the process of Ti.
The whole of its spirituality is that which naturally emerges from, and most cohesively aligns with, the psychology of Ti. While I feel that several volumes could be dedicated just to this topic alone, I will briefly mention some prominent expressions of this philosophy here.
The cause of suffering is attachment.
(The Second Noble Truth)
The philosophy of Zen notes that the origin if suffering is attachment to the world and a relinquishing of all striving and grasping is the key to achieving separation from suffering. While other doctrines and philosophies may teach that the proper avenue to approach the suffering innate to existence is with vigor, preservation and righteous avoidance of sin, Zen teaches that such approaches can never properly lead to contentment and that dispassion alone can unravel suffering since it’s caused by passion; the yang assertion of agendas and needs.
Here we are immediately stricken by the exaltation of a logical disposition and approach to life. Furthermore, this dispassionate methodology is practiced through reorganization of internal content; by introspection or meditation (Zen), and not by any organization of the external world.

Maybe this lead me to confusion becouse I internalized different mental images and models. The symbol is the same -> "emptiness". And I get that if we think in dispassioned fashion  then we may accept content (reality) "as it is". But I have image in my thoughts where Ti (and propably Ji in general) is "being in the head mode" and Zen is like "being out of the head".
The part of Zen is sensory deprivation but it is as a method to activate pre-frontal lobes in neocortex. And not to separate from sensual experience. There is a suggestion not to close the eyes doing meditation.
I wonder if we can rely purely on symbolism. Or if my understanding of Ti is not enough.
Also concept of attachment is problematic. Does Ti user can't be attached to own jugdement?
I don't think that there is idea that we have to be disconneted from our personal perspetive through F itself but be less jugdemental in general and rely more on Se/Si.

[Nymph]

I think Ji in general is attached to their personal judgments. In another segment of that article, Ti is also portrayed as being stubborn to their internal framework. I agree that Zen is more about getting out of your head. I don't know much, but one of the koans is "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." So once you arrive there, you burn the bridges, and there's really no path to it. I can see how that misaligns with Ji attitude. About meditation, a Zen friend of mine actually has a somewhat challenging attitude about it and would ask questions such as, "What is meditation?" And suggests something in the line of: every second is a meditation. (I hope I don't misquote him here)
Sorry can't get more detailed than that. Hopefully someone else more knowledgeable on this could answer your question.

[Author]

Posts