the collective unconscious without the archetypes

標籤:





your pet word of the unconscious has lately intrigued me enough that i decided to start looking into it.

since you often mention jung and just very occasionally if at all mention freud, i judge that when you say just the unconscious, you are actually thinking of the collective unconscious in specific. why i have to clarify is that you are also very much interested in the unconscious, per se, like when you talk freely about the tarot and various experiments of psychological suggestion. i wonder if you tend to think that the unconscious and the collective unconscious are so much so closely related as to you can use those two terms interchangeably without the need of maintaining some discrimination.

the first shock i encounter in initial exploration of the jungian concept is that, i am told, from still limited reading, the concept of archetypes is an integral part of it. the precise reason why i am shocked is that you actually seldom, if not none at all, bring up the topic of archetype. that's why i put the question to you last night. i just did a bit of further research into the idea. let me share my findings with you.

The contents of the collective unconscious…are known as archetypes (CW9(1):4).
http://aras.org/whatarearchetypes.aspx

from my grasp of your answer last night, i feel that you decided that the concept of archetype has quite a marginal place in jung's theory. but this positioning of the concept is blatantly contradicting jung's own judgment, in his own words as above quoted. what does it mean? possibly jung himself has disowned his earlier judgment when he has come up with a more mature version of the theory. is this the case, supposing you have a very solid understanding of jung?

i don't know for sure yet. but i can tell you last night when you used the collective unconscious theory to shed light on the HKSAR's annual temple lucky draw, i have had my most profound theoretical disorientation. i am feeling that if your way of using the collective unconscious theory is right, then archetypes have absolutely no place in any discussion involving the theory. such conclusion, however, is very unhappy, as it leads to an elimination of a very promising area of study.

from the not too reliable wikipedia:
-------------------------------------------------
Jung outlined five main archetypes:

* The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
* The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities that the ego does not identify with but possesses nonetheless
* The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche; or:
* The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
* The Persona, how we present to the world, usually protects the Ego from negative images(acts like a mask)

Although the number of archetypes is limitless, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images:

* The Child
* The Hero
* The Great Mother
* The Wise old man
* The Trickster or Fox
-------------------------------------------------

true that the number of archetypes is limitless, which means that the list is open to any reasonably interesting new candidates. but what counts as an archetype? obvious enough by way of a glance over the list, an archetype is a role, a role by which we persons experience ourselves in this world as in a story. i think this way of understanding ourselves is very illuminating. say we might think of ourselves as some kind of a hero working his way towards some sublime achievement, and just as the task is profound and difficult, his hope of receiving help from some wise old men is high and desperate. this archetype of the hero virtually dictates the total behavior of a person wearing the mask of the hero. so, in this way, the study of this archetype is a study of such a person. moreover, the notion of collective is true enough, since the idea of a hero is a cultural heritage each and everyone of us has access to, if only he is interested enough.

in contrast, when you explained the lucky draw, i didn't feel that you have made use of similar concepts, or maybe you have actually used it already, so fast that my head was left spinning in total perplexity? another possibility still, maybe you have brought the theory of collective unconscious into a new stage of development, of which i am too slow to fathom?

12 留言:

.bwd. 說...

Guess you may only want a dia-logue but mind my asking a few questions?

“the precise reason why i am shocked is that you actually seldom, if not none at all, bring up the topic of archetype” – is it just a matter of language use?

Archetype = Self/ Soul/ Consciousness + Unconsciousness (but not Collective unconsciousness)?

cf

Collective unconsciousness = Spirit/The Other (this I am not sure)?

“i feel that you decided that the concept of archetype has quite a marginal place in jung's theory.” / “i am feeling that if your way of using the collective unconscious theory is right, then archetypes have absolutely no place in any discussion involving the theory” – why do you think so (“feel”/ “feeling” I mean, not the latter clause)? Without a Self how can the collective unconsciousness be projected/ revealed?

“i wonder if you tend to think that the unconscious and the collective unconscious are so much so closely related as to you can use those two terms interchangeably without the need of maintainnig some discrimination.”- On what grounds are this wonder based?

.bwd. 說...

plus, "the collective unconscious without the archetypes" - i don't feel this notion being asserted (if i understand archetype correctly).

or can we say collective unconscious and archetype exist independently, and there is no necessity to raise concern on "with" or "without"?

pls note that it's only my understanding and should have nothing to do with your interlocutor's utterance/ stance.

Keen 說...

never mind a dialogue or monologue, an elucidating logue is a good logue.

my stance is quite simple. a version of the collective unconscious theory that does away with the notion of archetype is not quite jungian. it is at best neo-jungian (supposing there is no other brand of neo-jungian thinking).

i find that the origin version of the theory is quite rigorous and productive in yielding understanding, whereas the neo-jungian version, as identified here, is quite... arrh, "limitless," i feel.

for sure, there is some matter of language use, which is why some work of coming to terms is in order, and i feel i can't do better than what i have tried to do in the original post. i just want to add that, for me, if a personality is seened dominated by a particular archetype, the person in question has some "hidden" urges that can find expressions in living an archetypical life. in this light, i wonder, when jung says collective, does jung say so because urges are coming from a collective source, the so-called collective unconscious? or just because the culture from which the archetype has emerged is a common resource from which all of us can make use of? i think here is enough language use issues to tackle with.

Keen 說...

bil, i feel miserable that you don't feel that i have put enough grounds into my original post. :'(

.bwd. 說...

pls don't be, keen. You should take my capability / level of understanding on this topic into consideration. And I truly want to know why you thought so if you don't mind sharing it.

"my stance is quite simple. a version of the collective unconscious theory that does away with the notion of archetype is not quite Jungian"

mine is simply that I don't feel the interlocutor try in any way to cut collective unconscious off archetype. Of course I had no idea at all what you two had discussed, so I have no say here, you may say.

and, does Jungian or not matter? It's just... a signifier (i mean, as long as you two are clear about the theory there is no need to stick to the theory itself). What is important is whether the discourse/ utterance sounds... and thus be it neo- or not, it's just... signifiers. again i am trying to point out that it may all just a matter of language puzzle, and adding neo- can't actually get your message across more effectively.

Am I wrong on this? I think 'the "hidden" urges to live an archetype life' and 'collective unconscious' do not necessarily have an inter-relation.

"does jung say so because urges are coming from a collective source, the so-called collective unconscious? or just because the culture from which the archetype has emerged is a common resource from which all of us can make use of?"

1. urges are coming from a collective source, the so-called collective unconscious?
2. the culture from which the archetype has emerged is a common resource from which all of us can make use of?

What is the difference between the two? Do you mean the former collective unconscious and the latter collective conscious?

I have to admit that I haven't read any Jung before...

Keen 說...

"and thus be it neo- or not, it's just... signifiers. again i am trying to point out that it may all just a matter of language puzzle, and adding neo- can't actually get your message across more effectively."

ok, let me try harder to make my case clear.

say you get a birthday present, you tell me it is a bike, and show it to me.

now, i feel, upon looking at it, i must say that it is not a bike; at best, it was a neo-bike. to call a bike a bike, it's fine, but it certainly won't do to call a neo-bike a bike.

nonplussed and unsatisfied, you inquire, aren't bike and neo-bike just signifiers? alright, fair enough, i owe you an explanation.

well, your neo-bike is different from a real bike in that it lacks one wheel. so, instead of being a bicycle, it is a monocycle. and a monocycle functions quite differently from a bicycle.

of course, my illustration is just a way of illustration. your neo-bike might not be actually lacking something; as likely as not, it has something more. it might be a tricycle.

my point is that, like a bicycle, the original jungian theory, i.e. intact with the component of archetype, is a time-tested effective solution to some problem. so, if my interlocator's theorizing is jungian, to certain extent, i know what to expect of it, in terms of its potency and its limits, as has been reviewed and commented upon in the general literature of jungian study. however, if it is not jungian, neo or not - it doesn't matter, you are right, it is just a signifier - then, we find ourselves in the face of a new solution, such as a new drug. i think it is legitimate for me to wonder about its claims and promises, before i can calmly bring myself to ingest and assimilate it.

hope i have made myself clear. :)

.bwd. 說...

Thanks keen for ur harder try. what I meant is that, this is a conversation between you two, nothing more matters than you two understand what each other is talking about. What I am curious is why there is such misunderstanding, or above all, is it a misunderstanding?

Are you sure that you understand all these terms in question in the Jungian theory? are you sure that your interlocutor “misused”/ “misunderstood”/ “transformed” the terms (it seems to be your purpose of posting your note, that you thought your interlocutor misunderstood, or, hijacked some Jungian terms?) – but not following the Jungian theory as you expected (but I am still thinking if it is necessary to follow the original theory, or things can be transformed according to the context of the discussion – as long as both parties understand) – and you correctly figured out such “misunderstanding”/ “mis-use”/ “transformation”, so as to verify your expectation being put against? Please don’t think that I condemn this expectation, on the contrary, I see such expectation – to use my term, playing the same language game – essential for an effective communication. All my words can be summed up to, how do you come to a conclusion that your interlocutor is not playing the same language game as you do and that you think he should (for the sake of valid, if not effective, communication), so that the discussion turns to be a new drug? Perhaps it’s the same old drug that you’ve been taking, just it is wrapped in a capsule of another colour that you feel inconceivable to swallow? or, perhaps, the topic of discussion is not about “bike/drug” at all?

.bwd. 說...

Perhaps it’s the whole point – not constructed but led to - of the discussion - the theoretical disorientation you have experienced? the limit that you haven’t felt before but do now? the mystical message that made you feel perplexed?

.bwd. 說...

No need to explain to me further if you don’t think I get your point, Keen. If you play my game you may be led astray.

宇宙大moron 說...

to be honest, keen, your sucking unconsciousness has been fucking your sucking conscious life up into a fucking sucking mess.

Keen 說...

last night i saw Benjamin Button with lucia. at the cheese cake after the movie - she said it helps her recuperate calcium - she remarked on Benjamin's words to make her point. let me quote Benjamin.

Along the way you bump into
people who make a dent on your
life... Some people... get struck
by lightning...

Some are born to sit by a river.

Some have an ear for music...

Some are artists...

Some swim the English Channel...

Some know buttons...

Some know Shakespeare...

Some are mothers...

And some people can dance...

***

i loved animal documentaries very much when i was small. some animals crawl, some are into racing. some kill, some are made to get killed. some like locking themselves up in cocoon - some would come out for light sooner or later, while some decide to stay forever in darkness for their dark business. yet some other animals spill venom. still some other are best at fucking and sucking. you know what, dear cosmos-sized moron? god told me his creatures are harmless.

Fuckie Suckie 說...

hello~hahaaahah~0拿0拿~hahaha~fuckie suckie!!~hahaha~hello~fuckie suckie!...