Jung (In the weeds): Part One

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Cindy Wrote:
Yet consider if the two riders were to sit still in horizontal equilibrium--all processing has stopped; true, a balance has been achieved, but the ride is over, i.e., the process of individuation and the development of personality is stymied because the energy has been withdrawn given a lack of tension between the opposites.
I see this differently. The ride is not over, as much as, the balance is achieved. The two made into one. Perfect assimilation, and the achievement of personality.
The reason why this analogy doesn't work as well, though, as the standard analogy that I shared is because the ego doesn't have its necessary role; and the fulcrum as ego doesn't work because the fulcrum is invariably stable no matter what the process. Neither does the fulcrum as the threshold of consciousness work because it’s is incapable of being moved, i.e., raised or lowered.
Once the balance is obtained, I feel the ego is no longer required. Interestingly…
“As a matter of fact, this psyche, which in Indian philosophy is called the “higher” consciousness, corresponds to what we call in the West call the “Unconscious””.- Jung
IMHO, striking the balance brings us to this “higher consciousness” if only because the persona has been tamed and subdued to live in accord with the instinct of humankind.
To strive for wholeness does not mean to be balanced in functioning at all times, and should you aim for that, you'll never be satisfied with the progress that you do make. Individuation is an ongoing process as is the creation of personality.
I perfectly agree here. The see-saw may eternally go back and forth. I’m just an idealist.
And, Neoplato, wholeness is an ideal that is rarely if ever achieved in actuality; the individuation process continues until we take our last breath. It’s those extraordinary figures such as the Christ or the Buddha who can be said to have achieved wholeness and a completed individuation. Our goal—well, mine, anyway, since, who knows, perhaps it is within your potential to achieve a completed individuation --is to ever approach wholeness. We're in a continual state of becoming.
I understand your point. The best I can hope for is to strive to achieve balance. However, I’m pretty good at “balancing the beans”. :D :wink:
Would you please do me a favor, Neoplato, when you have the time? I’d like to know the title of the essay that you’re referencing with this quote and, if you can locate it in your book, its original source since I don’t have the same compilation of essays that you do. It’s unclear to me what the link is supposed to be between these men’s ideas as you presented it. Thanks.
“Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” CW 9 i, pars. 489-524
Neoplato, I’m sorry to say that you’ve misunderstood. The ego does not “disappear” during the course of personality development and individuation—it grows ever more in its functioning and influence as one approaches wholeness. “Assimilation” refers to the integration of previously unconscious contents and processes into conscious awareness.
Again, I see your point Cindy. However, I am also trying to assimilate Jung and his terminology into my schema. From what I can tell, in Jungian terms, the ego can’t be dissolved because this is the vehicle that lets us “think”. However, in other models, the term “ego” is more aligned to the idea of persona.

When I compare these other models to Jung, the “elimination of the ego” can only mean in Jungian terms, the balance of the consciousness and unconsciousness. When that occurs I can see the ego becoming nothing more than a pass-through regulating function. It still may exist, but it may be perceived as being eliminated.

I guess you can say that I'm trying to assimilate "assimilations". But then again, that's what us Neo-Platonists enjoy doing. :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Neoplato wrote:I guess you can say that I'm trying to assimilate "assimilations". But then again, that's what us Neo-Platonists enjoy doing. :D
Ha! But I have another favor to ask. Please give me a heads up when you're expressing such a view so I can understand where you're coming from. If not, it's not clear to me that you've grasped the Jungian conceptualizations. And so you know, for the purposes of this thread, I will always stick with Jung.

As for the Schopenhauer quote, I didn't find it specifically, but I did find other mentions of Schopenhauer by Jung, enough to remind me that Schopenhauer's will is an idealistic and transcendental concept, so of course there's no place for ego here. Thanks for your help, Neoplato!

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Cindy, thank you for providing the link to that page on the connection between the collective subconscious and the ego, but I’m afraid I’m still in the dark. My bad, for all I could figure from that explanation was that the collective subconscious or the Jungian Self is taken for a ‘given’, perhaps something that is existing eternally and I still don’t know whether the Jungian Self is taken by psychologists for a static ‘pool’ or alternatively as a dynamic system that also receives information continuously. From what I can gather so far, it seems the Jungian Ego is a ‘victim’ of the Jungian Self since the process of individuation is initiated by the Jungian Self. (No mention of the Jungian Ego initially preferring an impulse over any other coming from the Jungian Self was mentioned. )

May I ask you again:
Evinnra wrote: Would Jung say that the real Ego is the one that already has the preferences, or would Jung say that the Ego simply evaluates these roles before selecting one and precisely that selecting process is what the Ego is?
:? Please bare with me Cindy, I have no training in psychology.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Just got done with "Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation". Jung makes some good comments which I alluded to earlier. All I had to do is read a little further.
"One is inclined to think that ego-consciousness is capable of assimilating the unconscious, at least one hopes that such a solution is possible. But unfortunately the unconscious really is unconscious; in other words, it is unknown . And how can you assimilate something unknown?"
Here's the quote I've been waiting for. This explains the difference I was looking for.
"It makes no difference whether they (the yogis) call our unconscious, a "universal consciousness"; the fact remains that in their case the unconscious has swallowed up ego-conscious. They do not realize that a "universal consciousness" is a contradiction in terms, since exclusion, selection, and discrimination are the root and essence of everything that lays claim to the name "consciousness".
And he elaborates further....
"Our European ego-consciousness is therefore inclined to swallow up the unconscious, and if this should not prove feasible we try to surpress it. But if we understand anything of the unconscious, we know that it cannot be swallowed. We also know that it is dangerous to surpress it, because the unconscious is life and this life turns against us if suppressed, as happens in neurosis."
And hits it home with...
"It is the old game of hammer and anvil: between them the patient iron is forged into an indestructible whole, an "individual""
"It turned out, to my own great astonishment, that the symbol formation has the closest affinities with alchemical ideas, and especially with the conceptions of the "uniting symbol," which yield significant parallels."
"Out of this union emerge new situations and new conscious attitudes. I have therefore called the union of these opposites the "transcendent function." This rounding out of the personality into a whole may well be the goal of any psychotherapy that claims to be more than a mere cure of symptoms."
Well, bringing the two into one is what Neo-Platonism is about. 8)
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Evinnra,

Did you see the PM that I sent you today? I'd noticed that you were online. If not, I intend to get back to you today in this thread. Here at home I'm trying to juggle several tasks at once (Boring.), and in between I'm creating a post for you, too. (Not boring. :) ) I'll be back!

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Collective Unconscious and Self

Post by Cindy B. »

Evinnra wrote:From where does the Jungian Self receive its content? (I.e. what makes the collective unconscious?) What makes the Ego select one impulse coming from the Jungian Self over another? Say, the Jungian Self relates the archetypal truth of the ‘Little Red Riding Hood” story to me, does my Jungian Ego have a choice in selecting the role of the Wolf, the Hunter, the Grandma or the title role? Would Jung say that the real Ego is the one that already has the preferences, or would Jung say that the Ego simply evaluates these roles before selecting one and precisely that selecting process is what the Ego is?
Hi again, Evinnra.

You’ve raised some very interesting issues—well, in my opinion, anyway--and I apologize for not getting back to you earlier in this thread. I wanted to finish with the train of thought begun by Neoplato before changing the subject.

Also, because of all going on in my house today, I’ve not had the amount of computer time that I’d hoped for, so in this post I’m going to address this: From where does the Jungian Self receive its content? (I.e. what makes the collective unconscious?) I saw your post, too, wherein you mentioned some confusion after reading the thread on archetypes and the collective unconscious, so should I not clear up things a bit for you here, please do let me know.

So, Evinnra, the collective unconscious is the inherited and instinctual level of psychic functioning that is universally, i.e., collectively, shared among all human beings, and its contents are the psychic instincts called archetypes. (So as you asked about in today's post, nothing is ever "static"; psychic instincts are energic factors that continually affect and effect our functioning.) Yet within these psychic bounds is tremendous potential of variation or creative expression whether we’re referring to the collective psyche of humankind, a particular collective psyche of a given peoples, or an individual’s psyche. The central archetype of the collective unconscious is the Self. (The ego eventually emerges in consciousness as an extension of Self given biological maturation and early interaction with the environment.) Jung conceptualized the Self as the “archetype of wholeness” and "the archetype of meaning" that regulates and orchestrates psychic functioning in its myriad expressions via particular other archetypes that are—and take special note—that are in turn expressions of the Self as the archetype of wholeness. Yet at the same time, Jung also conceptualized the Self as encompassing the psyche in its totality, in its wholeness. The Self, therefore, is both transcendent to the individual psyche and the all-important central archetype, or center, of the collective unconscious. Thank you, Jung, for making this clear as a bell. Not. :wink:

Jung: The Self is not only the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of consciousness.

Also, it's from this deepest realm of the unconscious that all the great myths and lesser stories, too, arise that emerge as expressions of the psyche and what it means to be human. These same stories also express what is meaningful about being human, and ultimately the author of these dramas is Self. Despite our apparent cultural differences and the many squabbles among groups or individuals, in essence we are all one, we are all Self, or as Jung put it: In some way or other we are part of a single, all-embracing psyche, a single "greatest man…"

***

Before I can address the rest of the material in your quote, Evinnra, I need to describe for you the Jungian personal unconscious, and this I plan to post tomorrow…I hope. Lying between the level of the collective unconscious and Self and the level of consciousness and ego is the personal unconscious, i.e., personal to the individual in contrast to what is universal about the collective unconscious, and this level of psychic functioning plays a role in those choices made by the ego that you mentioned with regard to “Little Red Ridinghood.” Again, sorry for not getting to everything today.

***

One last word about Self and the collective unconscious and a pretty picture, too.

A symbol of Self that is common to all peoples is the mandala. Mandala images are spontaneous creations of the collective unconscious that arise in dreams and art work of all kinds. Early during the course of Jung’s exploration of his own psyche, he came to recognize the significance of the mandala as a symbol of wholeness, or Self, and said: I had to abandon the idea of the superordinate position of the ego...I saw that everything, all paths I had been following, all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point --namely, to the mid-point. It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the centre. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the centre, to individuation...I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the Self I had attained what was for me the ultimate. (From Mandala Symbolism, Princeton University Press, 1973.)


The Chartres Cathedral Labyrinth by Charles Gilchrist

Image
http://www.charlesgilchrist.com/SGEO/Gal901.html


Now, one other thing that Jung discovered in his own dreams and art work as well as in his clients’ is that when the issue was a religious one, and irrespective of the religious beliefs to be had, the common symbol that emerged as an expression of God or The Divine was also the mandala. The Self as the archetype of wholeness is ultimately indistinguishable from the God archetype. Indeed God is to be found within. And the mandala, of course, can be found in the art work of all spiritual traditions.

Yet Jung also said this: This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is the medium from which the religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such an experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem.

Cindy


P.S. Some may be interested in this article: "Christ: A Symbol of the Self." http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 3777#53777
Last edited by Cindy B. on Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:34 am, edited 7 times in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

:D Whohoo, this is GOLD! Thanks Neoplato.
Neoplato wrote: Here's the quote I've been waiting for. This explains the difference I was looking for.
"It makes no difference whether they (the yogis) call our unconscious, a "universal consciousness"; the fact remains that in their case the unconscious has swallowed up ego-conscious. They do not realize that a "universal consciousness" is a contradiction in terms, since exclusion, selection, and discrimination are the root and essence of everything that lays claim to the name "consciousness".
And he elaborates further....
"Our European ego-consciousness is therefore inclined to swallow up the unconscious, and if this should not prove feasible we try to surpress it. But if we understand anything of the unconscious, we know that it cannot be swallowed. We also know that it is dangerous to surpress it, because the unconscious is life and this life turns against us if suppressed, as happens in neurosis."
And hits it home with...
"It is the old game of hammer and anvil: between them the patient iron is forged into an indestructible whole, an "individual""

Well, bringing the two into one is what Neo-Platonism is about. 8)
Let me share a bit more - if I'm sharing too much, please let me know. :oops:

Last night I went to sleep straight after posting for this topic and I had a terrifying dream. In this dream I was in my home-town, beautiful Budapest, and as I was casually strolling I suddenly realized that a menacing male figure followed me with the intention to destroy me. He was not a killer who would try to stab me or shoot me and he was not even angry, just mean and powerful. My first reaction was to turn around and ask ‘what’s your problem putz?!’ but I instantly sensed that there was no rhyme or reason in his primal urge to destroy. Next I tried to hide behind a ‘husband’ figure, but the presence of this ominous destruction - like a surrounding blanket of fog - was keep attacking me. I began to complain that I can’t see this thing yet it is giving me a headache, it takes my breath away and I’m out of ideas how to escape from it, yet I did manage to escape into a very tall building and then the danger was over.

Now, I don’t know how Jungian analysis would deal with this dream, but my own method of dream interpretation reveals something really positive about this. Strolling in my birth-town signifies creative plans I make for my life and being chased by a menacing male figure signifies what it actually shows: danger. Attempting to confront this danger is met with the realization that it is not possible to fight this danger, which in my interpretation signifies that I am actually dealing with things that are truly limiting my plans/abilities. Escaping into a very tall building signifies that IMAGINATION is what will make a difference in whether I will retain my abilities or not.
I wonder how a Jungian psychologist would interpret this dream segment? Was it the ‘libido’ emanating from the Jungian Self that ‘listened to no rhyme or reason’ in my dream? :?:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Thanks Cindy, I did receive you PM and I’ve sent you a reply. What you answered so far on this thread is extremely interesting and I am looking forward to receiving more. Ah, Chartres, ... words fail me! :roll:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Just a note about your dream interpretation, Evinnra. From the outside looking in, I say 8) . It so happens that dreams are best understood and interpreted as a series, so take note of the next few dreams that arise, too, to see what the central theme may be, your message from Self. And no one can better interpret your dream than you.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

SteveC
Associate
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Post by SteveC »

Cindy B. wrote:
The Chartres Cathedral Labyrinth by Charles Gilchrist

Image
http://www.charlesgilchrist.com/SGEO/Gal901.html


Now, one other thing that Jung discovered in his own dreams and art work as well as in his clients’ is that when the issue was a religious one, and irrespective of the religious beliefs to be had, the common symbol that emerged as an expression of God or The Divine was also the mandala. The Self as the archetype of wholeness is ultimately indistinguishable from the God archetype. Indeed God is to be found within. And the mandala, of course, can be found in the art work of all spiritual traditions.

Yet Jung also said this: This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is the medium from which the religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such an experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem.

Cindy
Thank you so much for posting that image!
One of my favorite books is The Great Wave, which starts off with a description of the building of that cathedral. A little more digging reveals that the mandala is on the floor there.

One of my students last week said that 'three lefts make a right.' How appropriate as a way to describe our journey. We may make many turns (3L=R) but the destination and experience are all similar. Longer or shorter perhaps, but always one foot in front of the other.

I had never thought to check to see what the cathedral itself looked like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartres_Cathedral
You can only see the height of a mountain from its valley.


The radical myth towards which the helix aspires is beyond the desire for money or power, yet which has greater returns than all the power and money in the world could not achieve.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Glad you enjoyed the mandala, Steve. For obvious reasons this is one of my favorite examples to use. As for the actual Chartres Cathedral Labyrinth, this might interest you: http://www.lessons4living.com/chartres_labyrinth.htm

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

There were some passages on mandalas today, but I didn't find any interesting quotes. Reading "selections" of works is interesting because of the "mood" changes. The tone was very "calm" when Jung was talking about mandalas.

Well... here's some memorable quotes from today.
"When the god is not acknowledged, egomania develops, and out of this mania comes sickness".

"The tragedy of Zarathustra is that, because his God died, Nietzsche himself became a god; and this happened because he was no atheist. He was too positive a nature to tolerate the urban neurosis of atheism."
Now that's interesting. Atheism a neurosis?
"We do not create "God", we choose him".

"The individual ego is much too small, its brain is much too feeble, to incorporate all the projections withdrawn from the world. Ego and brain burst assunder in the effort; the psychiatrist calls it schizophrenia."
I really didn't see anything new, just some rephrasing of previous ideas. There's some sections coming out on alchemy.

Anyone have any lead? :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

"When the god is not acknowledged, egomania develops, and out of this mania comes sickness".

"The tragedy of Zarathustra is that, because his God died, Nietzsche himself became a god; and this happened because he was no atheist. He was too positive a nature to tolerate the urban neurosis of atheism."
Now that's interesting. Atheism a neurosis?- Neo
Like having an ability to love but finding nothing /nobody to love cripples the individual the same as having the ability to assimilate/believe but not having anything to assimilate with or believe in? Nah, it couldn’t be THAT simple …
:shock:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

A note about analytical psychology:

Unlike experimental psychologies that tend to focus on circumscribed and observable aspects of psychological functioning and behavior, the focus of Jung’s analytical psychology (or any other comprehensive theory of personality) is the psyche as a whole in its complexity, development, and expression, both subjectively and objectively. True, to understand any complex phenomenon, we do tend to break it up into constituent parts, levels, and processes, yet when it comes to personality and the psyche, what matters is the continual dynamic interaction among various psychological factors. I mention this since in this thread, we have little choice but to slice and dice Jungian thought as we explore it.

And this likely goes without saying, but just in case, Jungian terminology and concepts are metaphorical descriptors for the most part. No scientist can peek inside the brain and locate the “ego” or “Self” or directly observe “the levels of consciousness and unconsciousness,” etc., yet this does not invalidate Jungian theory as a meaningful approach to understanding the human experience. Jungian and post-Jungian thinking continues to bear fruit in many fields, particularly in the humanities and social sciences; and in recent years, theoreticians in certain hard sciences and philosophy of mind have begun to take a look at Jung as well.

So, up next--the "personal unconscious" for Evinnra, a post in progress...


:)
Last edited by Cindy B. on Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Like having an ability to love but finding nothing /nobody to love cripples the individual the same as having the ability to assimilate/believe but not having anything to assimilate with or believe in? Nah, it couldn’t be THAT simple
Your example clarified that Evinnra. Although it makes me wonder what the "side affect" of atheism is. Sickness, depression, social disorders?

Now that's an interesting notion, how does the unconsciousness affect atheists? I'm sure they would say it doesn't. :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Locked