classes ::: Aion, chapter, Carl Jung,
children :::
branches :::
see also :::

bookmarks: Instances - Definitions - Quotes - Chapters - Wordnet - Webgen


object:1.01 - The Ego
book class:Aion
class:chapter
author class:Carl Jung


These things came to pass, they say, that Jesus
might be made the first sacrifice in the discrim-
ination of composite natures.

Hippolytus, Elenchos, VII, 27, 8



THE EGO

Investigation of the psychology of the unconscious con-
fronted me with facts which required the formulation of new
concepts. One of these concepts is the self. The entity so denoted
is not meant to take the place of the one that has always been
known as the ego, but includes it in a supraordinate concept.
We understand the ego as the complex factor to which all con-
scious contents are related. It forms, as it were, the centre of the
field of consciousness; and, in so far as this comprises the em-
pirical personality, the ego is the subject of all personal acts of
consciousness. The relation of a psychic content to the ego forms
the criterion of its consciousness, for no content can be con-
scious unless it is represented to a subject.

With this definition we have described and delimited the
scope of the subject. Theoretically, no limits can be set to the
field of consciousness, since it is capable of indefinite extension.
Empirically, however, it always finds its limit when it comes up
against the unknown. This consists of everything we do not
know, which, therefore, is not related to the ego as the centre
of the field of consciousness. The unknown falls into two groups
of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by
the senses, and those which are inside and are experienced im-
mediately. The first group comprises the unknown in the outer
world; the second the unknown in the inner world. We call this
latter territory the unconscious.

The ego, as a specific content of consciousness, is not a sim-
ple or elementary factor but a complex one which, as such,
cannot be described exhaustively. Experience shows that it rests
on two seemingly different bases: the somatic and the psychic.
The somatic basis is inferred from the totality of endosomatic
perceptions, which for their part are already of a psychic nature
and are associated with the ego, and are therefore conscious.
They are produced by endosomatic stimuli, only some of which

cross the threshold of consciousness. A considerable proportion
of these stimuli occur unconsciously, that is, subliminally. The
fact that they are subliminal does not necessarily mean that their
status is merely physiological, any more than this would be true
of a psychic content. Sometimes they are capable of crossing the
threshold, that is, of becoming perceptions. But there is no
doubt that a large proportion of these endosomatic stimuli are
simply incapable of consciousness and are so elementary that
there is no reason to assign them a psychic nature- unless of
course one favours the philosophical view that all life-processes
are psychic anyway. The chief objection to this hardly demon-
strable hypothesis is that it enlarges the concept of the psyche
beyond all bounds and interprets the life-process in a way not
absolutely warranted by the facts. Concepts that are too broad
usually prove to be unsuitable instruments because they are too
vague and nebulous. I have therefore suggested that the term
"psychic" be used only where there is evidence of a will capable
of modifying reflex or instinctual processes. Here I must refer
the reader to my paper "On the Nature of the Psyche," * where
I have discussed this definition of the "psychic" at somewhat
greater length.

The somatic basis of the ego consists, then, of conscious and
unconscious factors. The same is true of the psychic basis: on
the one hand the ego rests on the total field of consciousness,
and on the other, on the sum total of unconscious contents.
These fall into three groups: first, temporarily subliminal con-
tents that can be reproduced voluntarily (memory); second,
unconscious contents that cannot be reproduced voluntarily;
third, contents that are not capable of becoming conscious at all.
Group two can be inferred from the spontaneous irruption of
subliminal contents into consciousness. Group three is hypo-
thetical; it is a logical inference from the facts underlying group
two. It contains contents which have not yet irrupted into con-
sciousness, or which never will.

When I said that the ego "rests" on the total field of con-
sciousness I do not mean that it consists of this. Were that so, it
would be indistinguishable from the field of consciousness as a
whole. The ego is only the latter's point of reference, grounded
on and limited by the somatic factor described above,
l Pars. 37 iff.


Although its bases are in themselves relatively unknown and
unconscious, the ego is a conscious factor par excellence. It is
even acquired, empirically speaking, during the individual's
lifetime. It seems to arise in the first place from the collision
between the somatic factor and the environment, and, once
established as a subject, it goes on developing from further col-
lisions with the outer world and the inner.

Despite the unlimited extent of its bases, the ego is never
more and never less than consciousness as a whole. As a con-
scious factor the ego could, theoretically at least, be described
completely. But this would never amount to more than a pic-
ture of the conscious personality; all those features which are
unknown or unconscious to the subject would be missing. A
total picture would have to include these. But a total descrip-
tion of the personality is, even in theory, absolutely impossible,
because the unconscious portion of it cannot be grasped cogni-
tively. This unconscious portion, as experience has abundantly
shown, is by no means unimportant. On the contrary, the most
decisive qualities in a person are often unconscious and can be
perceived only by others, or have to be laboriously discovered
with outside help.

Clearly, then, the personality as a total phenomenon does
not coincide with the ego, that is, with the conscious personality,
but forms an entity that has to be distinguished from the ego.
Naturally the need to do this is incumbent only on a psychology
that reckons with the fact of the unconscious, but for such a
psychology the distinction is of paramount importance. Even for
jurisprudence it should be of some importance whether certain
psychic facts are conscious or not - for instance, in adjudging the
question of responsibility.

I have suggested calling the total personality which, though
present, cannot be fully known, the self. The ego is, by defini-
tion, subordinate to the self and is related to it like a part to the
whole. Inside the field of consciousness it has, as we say, free
will. By this I do not mean anything philosophical, only the
well-known psychological fact of "free choice," or rather the sub-
jective feeling of freedom. But, just as our free will clashes with
necessity in the outside world, so also it finds its limits outside
the field of consciousness in the subjective inner world, where
it comes into conflict with the facts of the self. And just as
circumstances or outside events "happen" to us and limit our
freedom, so the self acts upon the ego like an objective occur-
rence which free will can do very little to alter. It is, indeed, well
known that the ego not only can do nothing against the self, but
is sometimes actually assimilated by unconscious components
of the personality that are in the process of development and
is greatly altered by them.

It is, in the nature of the case, impossible to give any general
description of the ego except a formal one. Any other mode of
observation would have to take account of the individuality
which attaches to the ego as one of its main characteristics. Al-
though the numerous elements composing this complex factor
are, in themselves, everywhere the same, they are infinitely
varied as regards clarity, emotional colouring, and scope. The
result of their combination- the ego- is therefore, so far as one
can judge, individual and unique, and retains its identity up
to a certain point. Its stability is relative, because far-reaching
changes of personality can sometimes occur. Alterations of this
kind need not always be pathological; they can also be develop-
mental and hence fall within the scope of the normal.

Since it is the point of reference for the field of conscious-
ness, the ego is the subject of all successful attempts at adapta-
tion so far as these are achieved by the will. The ego therefore
has a significant part to play in the psychic economy. Its position
there is so important that there are good grounds for the prej-
udice that the ego is the centre of the personality, and that the
field of consciousness is the psyche per se. If we discount certain
suggestive ideas in Leibniz, Kant, Schelling, and Schopenhauer,
and the philosophical excursions of Carus and von Hartmann, it
is only since the end of the nineteenth century that modern
psychology, with its inductive methods, has discovered the
foundations of consciousness and proved empirically the exist-
ence of a psyche outside consciousness. With this discovery the
position of the ego, till then absolute, became relativized; that
is to say, though it retains its quality as the centre of the field of
consciousness, it is questionable whether it is the centre of the
personality. It is part of the personality but not the whole of it.
As I have said, it is simply impossible to estimate how large or
how small its share is; how free or how dependent it is on the
qualities of this "extra-conscious" psyche. We can only say that
its freedom is limited and its dependence proved in ways that
are often decisive. In my experience one would do well not to
underestimate its dependence on the unconscious. Naturally
there is no need to say this to persons who already overestimate
the latter's importance. Some criterion for the right measure is
afforded by the psychic consequences of a wrong estimate, a
point to which we shall return later on.
" We have seen that, from the standpoint of the psychology of
consciousness, the unconscious can be divided into three groups
of contents. But from the standpoint of the psychology of the
personality a twofold division ensues: an "extra-conscious"
psyche whose contents are personal, and an "extra-conscious"
psyche whose contents are impersonal and collective. The first
group comprises contents which are integral components of the
individual personality and could therefore just as well be con-
scious; the second group forms, as it were, an omnipresent, un-
changing, and everywhere identical quality or substrate of the
psyche per se. This is, of course, no more than a hypothesis. But
we are driven to it by the peculiar nature of the empirical ma-
terial, not to mention the high probability that the general
similarity of psychic processes in all individuals must be based
on an equally general and impersonal principle that conforms
to law, just as the instinct manifesting itself in the individual is
only the partial manifestation of an instinctual substrate com-
mon to all men.




questions, comments, suggestions/feedback, take-down requests, contribute, etc
contact me @ integralyogin@gmail.com or
join the integral discord server (chatrooms)
if the page you visited was empty, it may be noted and I will try to fill it out. cheers


OBJECT INSTANCES [0] - TOPICS - AUTHORS - BOOKS - CHAPTERS - CLASSES - SEE ALSO - SIMILAR TITLES

TOPICS
SEE ALSO


AUTH

BOOKS
Aion

IN CHAPTERS TITLE
1.01_-_The_Ego

IN CHAPTERS CLASSNAME

IN CHAPTERS TEXT
1.01_-_The_Ego

PRIMARY CLASS

chapter
SIMILAR TITLES

DEFINITIONS



QUOTES [0 / 0 - 0 / 0]


KEYS (10k)


NEW FULL DB (2.4M)


*** NEWFULLDB 2.4M ***


IN CHAPTERS [0/0]









WORDNET


































IN WEBGEN [10000/0]



change font "color":
change "background-color":
change "font-family":
change "padding":
change "table font size":
last updated: 2022-02-04 09:24:42
118980 site hits