“Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas” (Virgil). Nature, with her intricate and shadowy Existence, has always left man with an indefinite sense of awe. From the beginning of mans evolution (into the reflective thinker) he has been faced with bewildering questions which compel him to delve into the mysterious reasons why. From the depths of reality, or nay, perhaps I should say the deepest reaches of the contemplators being, there appears to arise a mysterious fusion of the stuff of life. This ubiquitous interconnectedness always remains as something: “distant”, “receding”, and only manifests itself “indirectly”. Mankind as a whole, seems to harbor the need for this “genuine truth” in temporal existence (“unearthing” a buoying cause if you will), which will posit meaning to all that he sees and is. Summoning the faculties of language/ thought (which in and of themselves can be seen as in dire need of explication) man seeks a vehicle (steadfast and strong) which can transport him to “his” overarching framework. The interest here lies in the seeker himself. With the way paved by the minds of the past, Carl Jung re-iterated the “novel”, multi-faceted postulate of the Collective Unconscious. Within this paper I endeavor to: briefly summarize Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, explain how this book is pertinent to Transpersonal Psychology and, quickly examine the strengths and weaknesses of this (Jung’s) work as well.
“Spiritus intus alit, opaque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscete” (Virgil). According to Jung, man has an ego consciousness, which includes all of the information which he willfully and actively utilizes on a day to day basis. This consciousness is much like a seed that is still surrounded by the “older/ larger” unconscious. The unconscious is split into two parts: the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious. The individual unconscious contains all of those components which the individual person has acquired and repressed or forgotten in the course of their lifetime. The collective unconscious includes all of those images-- or more accurately labeled “Forms” -- which are omnipresent throughout all time. To say that man has a collective unconscious is no more daring than to say perhaps, that man has instincts. The premise of Jung’s work seems to lie in that man doesn’t inherit ideas in and of themselves but, rather, genetically receives the potential to acquire/ experience Universal thoughts. The Universal thoughts can be seen as “motifs” in mythology (and many other writings), meaning that there are common “themes” present. These “motifs” or “themes” can be referred to as Primordial images, Forms, or as Jung chose to call them: Archetypes.
Archetypes are”…basic psychic elements [which] are infinitely varied and ever changing”(70); the latter are most indubitably not concrete conceptions. Archetypes seem to be present as a basic psychological need. This means that even when one hears men like Henrich Heine exclaim: “Hort ihr das Glockchen klingeln? Kniet nieder- Man bringt die Sakramente einem sterbenden Gotte.” (“Do you hear the little bell tinkle? Kneel down. They are bringing the sacraments to a dying god.”). Or, Friedrich Nietzsche state: “Gotte ist tot” (“God is dead”), one must realize that they are expressing that only the immediate Rosetta Stone has outworn its usefulness (rather than the archetypal image itself0 and hence is in need of replacement. As Euhemeros maintained, the gods are nothing but reflections of human character (60), therefore they are so immersed within us that they can never be dispensed. Ultimately, what is taken in general parlance as “God”, will eternally be resurrected (even if it resurfaces hiding under a mask of “rationality”, “Humanism” or “Science”).
Jung named several Archetypes in his book, which I feel are important to mention here. The persona consists of the psychic facts which one considers to be personal. It is the image of “I” that one chooses to allow the majority of the world to see. Things/ characteristics which contradict this persona (or actor-like “I”) are said to belong to the shadow. The shadow consists of everything that one living in their little “bubble” of restricted reality would consider “mot-me” (or “not-I”). this is of course an illusion because, the shadow is as much of what a person is as what the person wants to be (persona). Jung considered the shadow (much like the Trickster Figure) an entrance or a doorway (into higher thinking). He rationalized it as such because confrontation with the shadow forces a persons “bubble” (of primarily subjective reality?) to “pop”, leaving the person subjected to the absurd or undiluted objective reality (which is thought to be simply too large/ complex for the human mind to fully process). “Facilis descensus Averno: Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis: Sed revocare grandum superasque evadere ad auras, Hoc opus, hic labour est” (Virgil).
More of Jung’s archetypes include the Anima: the feminine (natural/ nurturing) part of a male; and, the Animus: the masculine (competitive/ rational) part of a female. Since all humans are born ab ovo, there is “obviously” a Maternal/ Mother Archetype that is necessary. Two other archetypes that Jung included are the Child: the “pre- and post- conscious essence of man”(178) being an “all-embracing nature of psychic wholeness”(ibid); and the Spirit (or wise old man); which helps guide a person on their journey (of life and realization). “Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem cogitat” (Horace). Rebirth is also an Archetype present in the Collective Unconscious. As a final word on Archetypes, I would like to mention that they manifest themselves differently in individuals and in some cases can be seen as outward projections L .
Goethe once said: “Zwei seelen Wohnen, ach! In meiner Brust” (Two souls dwell, alas! In my breast). This seems to be one of the primary basis of Jung’s work. Jung strives to achieve a reconciliation of opposites or at least a healthy balance of such. He called the latter the process of Individuation. “Du musst Herschel und gewinnen. Oder dienen und verlieren, Leider oder triumphieren. Amboss oder Hammer sein” (You must be master and win or serve and lose, arrive and triumph, be the anvil or the hammer) (Goethe). The purpose of Individuation seems to be to confront oneself and create the synthesis of the self. “La plus grande chose du monde, c’est de savoir etre a soi” (Montaigne); which according to Jung would be attaining a personality which is midpoint between ego consciousness and the unconscious; and, simultaneously recognizing that one has both an individual and a collective psyche. Jung also spoke of the Mandala symbol, which I wont get into here, but I will say that it represents psychic unity.
How does Carl Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious relate to our class material? Transpersonal Psychology is the study of higher states of awareness which, I believe correlates beautifully with Jung’s drive for man to transcend to something more elevated or greater. I also feel al most as though Transpersonal and Collective Unconsciousness’ could be used synonymously. The class presentation of Mythology/ Religion (which you provided) also had a distinctly Jungian taste. Myth was defined as: something which is supposed to assert a higher or greater reality and to tell us how to achieve it; which in no way disagrees with what Jung expressed in his book. Jung mentions strongly that dreams are an excellent entryway into the unconscious (collective) and that they assist us to come in contact with archetypal images. In class we learned that meditation is an: attempt to tune the physical body and the mental plane to the spiritual. This idea could have been simply taken from Jung’s The Archetypes… where he mentions meditation-- including mantras-- in the section where he speaks of Mandala’s. the most explicit example of how the two (our class and this book) relate to one another lies in that we covered Jung himself in addition to “his” Archetypes and Collective Unconscious. (Although you excused the work as too dense and complex for the scope of a undergraduate student.)
…This is thought of as illusion, as being and not-being. It is and yet remains dissolved in Shiva, Creation therefore begins with an act of division of the opposites that are united in the deity. From their splitting arises, in a gigantic explosion of energy, the multiplicity of the world. The goal of contemplating the process depicted in the Mandala is that the yogi shall become inwardly aware of the deity. Through contemplation, he recognizes himself as god again, and thus returns from the illusion of individual existence into universal totality of the divine state (357).
Recognizing the e pluribus Unum and the many in the one seems to be a critical point in both Jung’s book and Transpersonal Psychology. The ideal (higher state) of man, for both, is the synthesis of his many parts (or, with my limited knowledge in this field, I believe it to be… regardless).
Auf gut deutsch the strengths of Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious are numerous. Mit leib und seele Jung attacked the Herculian effort of “understanding life”. He comprehended that: “Medio tutissimus ibis” (Ovid); and sought a moderation of the various aspects of Being. Jung also emphasized that, as Martial said: “Non est vivere, sed valere vita est”. Philosophically speaking Jung had a well understanding of the world. He provided numerous pieces of “evidence” to support his hypothesis/ case, which I believe is always a positive strong point in any writer’s work. Jung was extremely well read (a fact that at times I found painfully apparent), which allowed him to demonstrate: where his patterns of thought came from (indicating that he’s not an isolated individual with thoughts which are/ were alien to mankind); and Universal/ quasi-empirical examples in which his Archetypes could be found/ applied. Jung was a scientist (psychologist) first and foremost, which makes his primary strength in the eyes of his co-workers, of course, his ability to provide readers with examples taken from real life.
My favorite aspect of this book is neither the former or the latter. I feel that the metaphor of a fisherman is Jung’s most powerful tool. It allows one to see Jung’s basic ideas in action. Following the metaphor, the ego consciousness is firmly planted on the ground, casts its line into the sea of the unconscious and passively awaits what can be reeled in or caught. It’s an instance of cooperation where neither the fisherman nor the sea attempt to dominate the other. When dominance is no longer the objective, what is left is like a pure action or a harmonious achievement. Jung promoted creativity and courage in addition to his “primary” act of “inventing” a theory, which cut beneath the cleavage of dichotomy.
Nemo sine viteo est (Daliegt der Hund begraben). “Difficile est propie communia dicere” (Horace). I believe that one of the most obvious weaknesses of The Archetypes… is that it’s overly complex. Jung uses unnecessary nominalizations (partially due to the translation from Suisse-Deutsch into English?), and he neglects to maintain stable language throughout the piece (constant interjections of “foreign” tongues are present J ). Jung requires his reader to have a large degree of background information and, to be blunt (in agree-ance with you) he’s not the best writer. I believe that Jung’s ideas appeal (or at least would seem to) primarily to introverted people. People who base their lives on “objective” data which “arrives” to them “externally” are somewhat projecting their unconscious, which seems to carry a negative connotation in Jung’s work. An absolutist (“monstrum horrendum. Informe, ingens, cuilumen ademptum” Virgil)… comes off as something “bad” whereas, an introverted attitude-- which would naturally be drawn to accepting Free Will (because of the internal orientation)-- is celebrated and almost glorified. (Mais…Que sais-je?).
As a Humanist I believe that man has an innate core Self, that in the process of awareness and realization, comes to see the coherence of its multiple, often contradictory pulls. In this, I believe that Jung and I have little disagreement. However, I also believe that this Self is a Responsible Self and I think that Jung doesn’t put anywhere near the emphasis on this that I think that he “should”. Man is to take responsibility of his own life (w/o neglecting his responsibility to other lives). He is to relish in the adventure of being a part of new discoveries, seek out new knowledge, and explore new options. Being human provides mankind with a noble birth. Man is not to succumb to pre-fabricated answers to the great questions in life, but rather, should enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that it entails. Jung considered man the sum total of his parts, and I almost see this as a fault, in that it seems to downplay man’s freedom. I view man as more of a Gestalt in that (so long as he is living) he possess an endless possibility to change. (I should clarify here that I do understand that volition consciousness is bound by obvious physical constrains, so’s not to cause any misunderstanding). Man is not a stagnant Being. His potential for Free Will allows him the ultimate power to reflect and often control how he chooses to perceive/ register his outer environment and what impact he will allow it to have on his innermost life. This means that the value of life is not to be found in its inherent meaning but in one’s attitude towards it. For man, every action carries with it innumerable consequences that has the self as the ultimate author. All in all, I will have to admit that I feel like Jung’s strengths outweigh his weaknesses.
An inextinguishable impulse burns within humankind. The desire to conjure up a plausible and credible answer, to the irreconcilable questions of life, does not seem to be something which man can pose to parry. Man seeks a contingent solution to the “problems” that his reflective thinking births. Jung, in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious , did not surpass the great seeking-s of humans; but, rather demonstrated an understanding of the motifs (of man’s thinking) and of the questions which are asked (of course knowing what questions to ask is a good deal of the battle). Jung’s writing contained a je ne sais quois quality. In this paper I have summarized Jung’s book; explored its Transpersonal significance; and, compared the strengths and weaknesses. In addition, I have also unclouded (more so than before) the point where I succumb to the corporal limitations of my essential humanity and define those bedrock assumptions which I am/ must be willing to take on faith. It’s been an interesting adventure to say the very least. If you’ll excuse me of this sheer fatuousness, I suppose that for me, the best place to end is in a similar placs as the beginning. “There are many wonderful things and nothing is more wonderful than man”(Sophocles)
TRANSLATIONS:
VIRGIL:
“Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.” “Lucky is he who has been able to learn the causes of things.”
“Spiritus intus alit, opaque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet.” “The spirit within nourishes, and the mind instilled throughout the living parts activates the whole mass mingles within the vast frame.”
“Facilis descensus Averno: Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis: Sed revocare grandum superasque evadere ad auras, Hoc opus, hic labour est.” “Easy is the way down into the Underworld: by night and by day dark Ditis door stands open; but to w/draw ones own steps and to make a way out to the upper air, that’s the task, that’s the labour.”
“Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cuilumen ademptum.” “A monster horrendous, hideous and vast, deprived of sight.”
Horace:
“Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem Cogitat.” “His thinking does not result in smoke after the flashing fire, but in light emerging from the smoke.”
“Difficile est proprie communia dicere.” “It is hard to utter common notions in an individual way.”
Montaigne:
“La plus grande chose du monde, c’est de savoir etre a soi.” “The greatest thing in the world is to know how to be one’s own.”
Ovid:
“Medio tutissimus ibis.” “A middle course is safest to take.”
Martial:
“Non est vivere; sed valere vita est.” “Life’s not just about being alive, but being well.”
Other:
Ob ovo….. from the egg/begining
E pluribus Unum……… one out of many
Auf gut deutsch…….. in plain language
Mit leib und seele……. with heart and soul
Nemo sine viteo est……. no one is w/o fault
Da liegt der Hund begraben….. that’s the crux of the matter
Je ne sais quios ……. I don’t know what/ hard to say
No comments:
Post a Comment