the collective unconscious without the archetypes

標籤: Keen

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?