1.09 - Fundamental Questions of Psycho therapy

classes ::: The Practice of Psycho therapy, Carl Jung, Psychology, chapter,
children :::
branches :::
see also :::

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

object:1.09 - Fundamental Questions of Psycho therapy
book class:The Practice of Psycho therapy
author class:Carl Jung
subject class:Psychology
class:chapter

IX
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF PSYCHO THERAPY 1
[230]
In the medical text-books of a few years back, under the general
heading of therapy, at the end of a list of cures and pharmaceutical
prescriptions, one might find a mysterious item called psycho therapy.
What exactly one was to understand by this remained shrouded in eloquent
obscurity. What did it mean? Was it hypnosis, suggestion, persuasion,
catharsis, psychoanalysis, Adlerian education, autogenic training, or what?
This list amply illustrates the vague multiplicity of opinions, views,
theories, and methods that all pass under the name of psycho therapy.
[231]
When a new and uninhabited continent is discovered, there are no
landmarks, no names, no highways, and every pioneer who sets foot upon
it comes back with a different story. Something of this kind seems to have
happened when medical men plunged for the first time into the new
continent named psyche. One of the first explorers to whom we are
indebted for more or less intelligible reports is Paracelsus. His uncanny
knowledge, which is at times not lacking in prophetic vision, was,
however, expressed in a language that was informed by the spirit of the
sixteenth century. It abounds not only in demonological and alchemical
ideas, but in Paracelsian neologisms, whose florid exuberance
compensated a secret feeling of inferiority quite in keeping with the self-
assertiveness of their much maligned, and not unjustly misunderstood,
creator. The scientific era, which began in earnest with the seventeenth
century, cast out the pearls of Paracelsus medical wisdom along with the
other lumber. Not until two centuries later did a new and altogether
different kind of empiricism arise with Mesmers theory of animal
magnetism, stemming partly from practical experiences which today we
should attri bute to suggestion, and partly from the old alchemical lore.
Working along these lines, the physicians of the Romantic Age then turned
their attention to somnambulism, thus laving the foundations for theclinical discovery of hysteria. But almost another century had to pass
before Charcot and his school could begin to consolidate ideas in this field.
We have to thank Pierre Janet for a deeper and more exact knowledge of
hysterical symptoms, and the two French physicians, Libeanlt and
Bernheim, later 10 be joined by August Forel in Switzerland, for a
systematic investigation and description of the phenomena of suggestion.
With the discovery by Breuer and Freud of the affective origins of
psychogenic symptoms, our knowledge of their causation took a decisive
step forward into the realm of psychology. The fact that the affectively
toned memory images which are lost to consciousness lay at the root of the
hysterical symptom immediately led to the postulate of an unconscious
layer of psychic happenings. This layer proved to be, not somatic, as the
academic psychology of those days was inclined to assume, but psychic,
because it behaves exactly like any other psychic function from which
consciousness is withdrawn, and which thus ceases to be associated with
the ego. As Janet showed almost simultaneously with Freud, but
independently of him, this holds true of hysterical symptoms generally.
But whereas Janet supposed that the reason for the withdrawal of
consciousness must lie in some specific weakness, Freud pointed out that
the memory images which produce the symptoms are characterized by a
disagreeable affective tone. Their disappearance from consciousness could
thus easily be explained by repression. Freud therefore regarded the
aetiological contents as incompatible with the tendencies of the
conscious mind. This hypothesis was supported by the fact that repressed
memories frequently arouse a moral censorship, and do so precisely on
account of their traumatic or morally repellent nature.
[232]
Freud extended the repression theory to the whole field of
psychogenic neuroses with great practical success; indeed, he went on to
use it as an explanation of culture as a whole. With this he found himself
in the sphere of general psychology, which had long been entrusted to the
philosophical faculty. Apart from a few technical terms and methodical
points of view, psychology, as practised by the doctor, had not so far been
able to borrow much from the philosophers, and so medical psychology,
on encountering an unconscious psyche right at the beginning of its career,
literally stepped into a vacuum. The concept of the unconscious was, with
a few praiseworthy exceptions, anathematized by academic psychology, so
that only the phenomena of consciousness were left as a possible object forpsychological research. The collision between the medical approach and
the general psychology then prevailing was therefore considerable. On the
other hand, Freuds discoveries were just as much of a challenge and a
stumbling-block to the purely somatic views of the doctors. And so they
have remained for the last fifty years. It needed the trend towards
psychosomatic medicine that came over from America to put a fresher
complexion on the picture. Even so, general psychology has still not been
able to draw the necessary conclusions from the fact of the unconscious.
[233]
Any advance into new territory is always attended by certain dangers,
for the pioneer has to rely in all his undertakings upon the equipment he
happens to take with him. This, in the present instance, is his training in
somatic medicine, his general education, and his view of the world, which
is based chiefly on subjective premises, partly temperamental, partly
social. His medical premises enable him to size up correctly the somatic
and biological aspects of the material he has to deal with; his general
education makes it possible for him to form an approximate idea of the
nature of the repressive factor; and finally, his view of the world helps him
to put his special knowledge on a broader basis and to fit it into a larger
whole. But when scientific research moves into a region hitherto
undiscovered and therefore unknown, the pioneer must always bear in
mind that another explorer, setting foot on the new continent at another
place and with other equipment, may well sketch quite another picture.
[234]
So it happened with Freud: his pupil Alfred Adler developed a view
which shows neurosis in a very different light. It is no longer the sexual
urge, or the pleasure principle, that dominates the picture, but the urge to
power (self-assertion, masculine protest, the will to be on top). As I
have shown in a concrete instance, both theories can be successfully
applied to one and the same case; moreover it is a well-known
psychological fact that the two urges keep the scales balanced, and that the
one generally underlies the other. Adler remained as one-sided as Freud,
and both agree that not only the neurosis, but the man himself, can be
explained from the shadow side, in terms of his moral inferiority.
2
[235]
All this points to the existence of a personal equation, a subjective
prejudice that was never submitted to criticism. The rigidity with which
both men adhered to their position denotes, as always, the compensating of
a secret uncertainty and an inner doubt. The facts as described by the twoinvestigators are, if taken with a pinch of salt, right enough; but it is
possible to interpret them in the one way as much as in the other, so that
both are partially wrong, or rather, they are mutually complementary. The
lesson to be drawn from this is that in practice one would do well to
consider both points of view.
[236]
The reason for this first dilemma of medical psychology presumably
lies in the fact that the doctors found no cultivated ground under their feet,
since ordinary psychology had nothing concrete to offer them. They were
therefore thrown back on their own subjective prejudices as soon as they
looked round for tools. For me, this resolved itself into the pressing need to
examine the kind of attitudes which human beings in general adopt
towards the object (no matter what this object may be). Accordingly, I
have come to postulate a number of types which all depend on the
respective predominance of one or the other orienting function of
consciousness, and have devised a tentative scheme into which the various
attitudes can be articulated. From this it would appear that there are no less
than eight theoretically possible attitudes. If we add to these all the other
more or less individual assumptions, it is evident that there is no end to the
possible viewpoints, all of which have their justification, at least
subjectively. In consequence, criticism of the psychological assumptions
upon which a mans theories are based becomes an imperative necessity.
Unfortunately, however, this has still not been generally recognized,
otherwise certain viewpoints could not be defended with such obstinacy
and blindness. One can only understand why this should be so when one
considers what the subjective prejudice signifies: it is as a rule a carefully
constructed product into whose making has gone the whole experience of a
lifetime. It is the individual psyche colliding with the environment. In the
majority of cases, therefore, it is a subjective variant of a universal human
experience, and for that very reason careful self-criticism and detailed
comparison are needed if we are to frame our judgments on a more
universal basis. But the more we rely on the principles of consciousness in
endeavouring to perform this essential task, the greater becomes the danger
of our interpreting experience in those terms, and thus of doing violence to
the facts by excessive theorizing. Our psychological experience is still too
recent and too limited in scope to permit of general theories. The
investigator needs a lot more facts which would throw light on the nature
of the psyche before he can begin to think of universally validpropositions. For the present we must observe the rule that a psychological
proposition can only lay claim to significance if the obverse of its meaning
can also be accepted as true.
[237]
Personal and theoretical prejudices are the most serious obstacles in
the way of psychological judgment. They can, however, be eliminated with
a little good will and insight. Freud himself accepted my suggestion that
every doctor should submit to a training analysis before interesting himself
in the unconscious of his patients for therapeutic purposes. All intelligent
psycho therapists who recognize the need for conscious realization of
unconscious aetiological factors agree with this view. Indeed it is
sufficiently obvious, and has been confirmed over and over again by
experience, that what the doctor fails to see in himself he either will not
see at all, or will see grossly exaggerated, in his patient; further, he
encourages those things to which he himself unconsciously inclines, and
condemns everything that he abhors in himself. Just as one rightly expects
the surgeons hands to be free from infection, so one ought to insist with
especial emphasis that the psycho therapist be prepared at all times to
exercise adequate self-criticism, a necessity which is all the more
incumbent upon him when he comes up against insuperable resistances in
the patient which may possibly be justified. He should remember that the
patient is there to be treated and not to verify a theory. For that matter,
there is no single theory in the whole field of practical psychology that
cannot on occasion prove basically wrong. In particular, the view that the
patients resistances are in no circumstances justified is completely
fallacious. The resistance might very well prove that the treatment rests on
false assumptions.
[238]
I have dwelt on the theme of training analysis at some length because
of late there have been renewed tendencies to build up the doctors
authority as such, and thus to inaugurate another era of ex cathedra
psycho therapy, a project which differs in no way from the somewhat
antiquated techniques of suggestion, whose inadequacy has long since
become apparent. (This is not to say that suggestion therapy is never
indicated.)
[239]
The intelligent psycho therapist has known for years that any
complicated treatment is an individual, dialectical process, in which the
doctor, as a person, participates just as much as the patient. In any suchdiscussion the question of whether the doctor has as much insight into his
own psychic processes as he expects from his patient naturally counts for a
very great deal, particularly in regard to the rapport, or relationship of
mutual confidence, on which the therapeutic success ultimately depends.
The patient, that is to say, can win his own inner security only from the
security of his relationship to the doctor as a human being. The doctor can
put over his authority with fairly good results on people who are easily
gulled. But for critical eyes it is apt to look a little too threadbare. This is
also the reason why the priest, the predecessor of the doctor in his role of
healer and psychologist, has in large measure forfeited his authority, at any
rate with the educated public. Difficult cases, therefore, are a veritable
ordeal for both patient and doctor. The latter should be prepared for this as
far as possible by a thorough training analysis. It is far from being either an
ideal or an absolutely certain means of dispelling illusions and projections,
but at least it demonstrates the need for self-criticism and can reinforce the
psycho therapists aptitude in this direction. No analysis is capable of
banishing all unconsciousness for ever. The analyst must go on learning
endlessly, and never forget that each new case brings new problems to
light and thus gives rise to unconscious assumptions that have never before
been constellated. We could say, without too much exaggeration, that a
good halt of every treatment that probes at all deeply consists in the
doctors examining himself, for only what he can put right in himself can
he hope to put right in the patient. It is no loss, either, if he feels that the
patient is hitting him, or even scoring off him: it is his own hurt that gives
the measure of his power to heal. This, and nothing else, is the meaning of
the Greek myth of the wounded physician.
3
[240]
The problems with which we are concerned here do not occur in the
field of minor psycho therapy, where the doctor can get along quite well
with suggestion, good advice, or an apt explanation. But neuroses or
psychotic borderline states in complicated and intelligent people frequently
require what is called major psycho therapy, that is, the dialectical
procedure. In order to conduct this with any prospect of success, all
subjective and theoretical assumptions must be eliminated as far as
practicable. One cannot treat a Mohammedan on the basis of Christian
beliefs, nor a Parsee with Jewish orthodoxy, nor a Christian with the pagan
philosophy of the ancient world, without introducing dangerous foreign
bodies into his psychic organism. This sort of thing is constantly practised, and not always with bad results; but, for all that, it is an experiment whose
legitimacy seems to me exceedingly doubtful. I think a conservative
treatment is the more advisable. One should, if possible, not destroy any
values that have not proved themselves definitely injurious. To replace a
Christian view of the world by a materialistic one is, to my way of
thinking, just as wrong as the attempt to argue with a convinced
materialist. That is the task of the missionary, not of the doctor.
[241]
Many psycho therapists, unlike me, hold the view that theoretical
problems do not enter into the therapeutic process at all. The aetiological
factors, they think, are all questions of purely personal psychology. But if
we scrutinize these factors more closely, we find that they present quite a
different picture. Take, for example, the sexual urge, which plays such an
enormous role in Freudian theory. This urge, like every other urge, is not a
personal acquisition, but is an objective and universal datum that has
nothing whatever to do with our personal wishes, desires, opinions, and
decisions. It is a completely impersonal force, and all we can do is to try to
come to terms with it with the help of subjective and theoretical
judgments. Of these latter, only the subjective premises (and then only a
part of them) belong to the personal sphere; for the rest they are derived
from the stream of tradition and from environmental influences, and only a
very small fraction of them has been built up personally as a result of
conscious choice. Just as I find myself moulded by external and objective
social influences, so also I am moulded by internal and unconscious forces,
which I have summed up under the term the subjective factor. The man
with the extraverted attitude bases himself primarily on social
relationships; the other, the introvert, primarily on the subjective factor.
The former is largely unaware of his subjective determinacy and regards it
as insignificant; as a matter of fact, he is frightened of it. The latter has
little or no interest in social relationships; he prefers to ignore them,
feeling them to be onerous, even terrifying. To the one, the world of
relationships is the important thing; for him it represents normality, the
goal of desire. The other is primarily concerned with the inner pattern of
his life, with his own self-consistency.
[242]
When we come to analyse the personality, we find that the extravert
makes a niche for himself in the world of relationships at the cost of
unconsciousness (of himself as a subject); while the introvert, in realizinghis personality, commits the grossest mistakes in the social sphere and
blunders about in the most absurd way. These two very typical attitudes
are enough to showquite apart from the types of physiological
temperament described by Kretschmerhow little one can fit human
beings and their neuroses into the strait jacket of a single theory.
[243]
As a rule these subjective premises are quite unknown to the patient,
and also, unfortunately, to the doctor, so that the latter is too often tempted
to overlook the old adage quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi, or in other words,
one mans meat is another mans poison, and in this way to unlock doors
that were better shut, and vice versa. Medical theory is just as likely as the
patient to become the victim of its own subjective premises, even if to a
lesser degree, since it is at least the outcome of comparative work on a
large number of cases and has therefore rejected any excessively
individual variants. This, however, is only in the smallest degree true of
the personal prejudices of its creator. Though the comparative work will
do something to mitigate them, they will nevertheless give a certain
colouring to his medical activities and will impose certain limits.
Accordingly, one urge or the other, one idea or the other, will then impose
itself as the limit and become a bogus principle which is the be-all and
end-all of research. Within this framework everything can be observed
correctly andaccording to the subjective premiselogically interpreted,
as was undoubtedly the case with Freud and Adler; and yet in spite of this,
or perhaps just because of it, very different views will result, in fact to all
appearances they will be flatly irreconcilable. The reason obviously lies in
the subjective premise, which assimilates what suits it and discards what
does not.
[244]
Such developments are by no means the exception in the history of
science, they are the rule. Anyone who accuses modern medical
psychology of not even being able to reach agreement on its own theories
is completely forgetting that no science can retain its vitality without
divergences of theory. Disagreements of this kind are, as always,
incentives to a new and deeper questioning. So also in psychology. The
Freud-Adler dilemma found its solution in the acceptance of divergent
principles, each of which laid stress on one particular aspect of the total
problem.
[245]
Seen from this angle, there are numerous lines of research still waitingto be opened up. One of the most interesting, perhaps, is the problem of the
a priori attitude-type and of the functions underlying it. This was the line
followed by the Rorschach test, Gestalt psychology, and the various other
attempts to classify type-differences. Another possibility, which seems to
me equally important, is the investigation of the theoretical factors that
have proved to be of such cardinal importance when it comes to choosing
and deciding. They have to be considered not only in the aetiology of
neurosis, but in the evaluation of the analytical findings. Freud himself laid
great emphasis on the function of the moral censor as one cause of
repression, and he even felt obliged to hold up religion as one of the
neuroticizing factors which lend support to infantile wish-fantasies. There
are, in addition, theoretical assumptions that claim to play a decisive part
in sublimationvalue-categories that are supposed to help or hinder the
work of fitting the tendencies revealed by the analysis of the unconscious
into the life-plan of the patient. The very greatest significance attaches to
the investigation of these so-called theoretical factors, not only in regard to
the aetiology butwhat is far more importantin regard to the therapy
and necessary reconstruction of the personality, as Freud himself
confirmed, even if only negatively, in his later writings. A substantial part
of these factors was termed by him the super-ego, which is the sum of all
the collective beliefs and values consciously handed down by tradition.
These, like the Torah for the orthodox Jew, constitute a solidly entrenched
psychic system which is superordinate to the ego and the cause of
numerous conflicts.
4
[246]
Freud also observed that the unconscious occasionally produces
images that can only be described as archaic. They are found more
particularly in dreams and in waking fantasies. He, too, tried to interpret or
amplify such symbols historically, as for example in his study of the
dual mother motif in a dream of Leonardo da Vinci.
5
[247]
Now it is a well-known fact that the factors composing the super-
ego correspond to the collective representations which Lvy-Bruhl
posited as basic to the psychology of primitive man. The latter are general
ideas and value-categories which have their origin in the primordial motifs
of mythology, and they govern the psychic and social life of the primitive
in much the same way as our lives are governed and moulded by the
general beliefs, views, and ethical values in accordance with which we arebrought up and by which we make our way in the world. They intervene
almost automatically in all our acts of choice and decision, as well as being
operative in the formation of concepts. With a little reflection, therefore,
we can practically always tell why we do something and on what general
assumptions our judgments and decisions are based. The false conclusions
and wrong decisions of the neurotic have pathogenic effects because they
are as a rule in conflict with these premises. Whoever can live with these
premises without friction fits into our society as perfectly as the primitive,
who takes his tribal teachings as an absolute rule of conduct.
[248]
But when an individual, as a result perhaps of some anomaly in his
personal disposition (no matter what this may be), ceases to conform to the
canon of collective ideas, he will very likely find himself not only in
conflict with society, but in disharmony with himself, since the super-ego
represents another psychic system within him. In that case he will become
neurotic: a dissociation of the personality supervenes, which, given the
necessary psychopathic foundation, may lead to its complete
fragmentation, that is, to the schizoid personality and to schizophrenia.
Such a case serves as a model for the personal neurosis, for which an
explanation in personalistic terms is quite sufficient, as we know from
experience that no further procedure is necessary for a cure except the
demolition of the subjects false conclusions and wrong decisions. His
wrong attitude having been corrected, the patient can then fit into society
again. His illness was in fact nothing but the product of a certain
weakness, either congenital or acquired. In cases of this kind it would be
a bad mistake to try to alter anything in the fundamental idea, the
collective representation. That would only thrust the patient still deeper
into his conflict with society by countenancing his pathogenic weakness.
[249]
Clinical observations seem to show that schizophrenics fall into two
different groups: an as thenic type (hence the French term psychasthnie)
and a spastic type, given to active conflict. And the same is true of
neurotics. The first type is represented by the kind of neurosis which can
be explained purely personalistically, as it is a form of maladjustment
based on personal weakness. The second type is represented by individuals
who could be adjusted without much difficulty, and who have also proved
their aptitude for it. But for some reason or other they cannot or will not
adjust themselves, and they do not understand why their own particularadjustment does not make normal life possible for them, when in their
estimation such a life should be well within the bounds of possibility. The
reason for their neurosis seems to lie in their having something above the
average, an overplus for which there is no adequate outlet. We may then
expect the patient to be consciously orin most casesunconsciously
critical of the generally accepted views and ideas. Freud, too, seems to
have come across similar experiences, otherwise he would hardly have felt
impelled to attack religion from the standpoint of the medical psychologist,
as being the cornerstone of a mans fundamental beliefs. Seen in the light
of medical experience, however, this attempt was, in a sense, thoroughly
consistent with its own premises, although one can hold a very different
view on the manner in which it was conducted; for not only is religion not
the enemy of the sick, it is actually a system of psychic healing, as the use
of the Christian term cure of souls makes clear, and as is also evident
from the Old Testament.
6
[250]
It is principally the neuroses of the second type that confront the
doctor with problems of this kind. There are in addition not a few patients
who, although they have no clinically recognizable neurosis, come to
consult the doctor on account of psychic conflicts and various other
difficulties in their lives, laying before him problems whose answer
inevitably involves a discussion of fundamental questions. Such people
often know very wellwhat the neurotic seldom or never knows that
their conflicts have to do with the fundamental problem of their own
attitude, and that this is bound up with certain principles or general ideas,
in a word, with their religious, ethical, or philosophical beliefs. It is
precisely because of such cases that psycho therapy has to spread far
beyond the confines of somatic medicine and psychiatry into regions that
were formerly the province of priests and philosophers. From the degree to
which priests and philosophers no longer discharge any duties in this
respect or their competence to do so has been denied by the public, we can
see what an enormous gap the psycho therapist is sometimes called upon to
fill, and how remote religion on the one hand and philosophy on the other
have become from the actualities of life. The parson is blamed because one
always knows in advance what he is going to say; the philosopher, because
he never says anything of the slightest practical value. And the odd thing is
that both of themwith few and ever fewer exceptionsare distinctly
unsympa thetic towards psychology.[251]
The positive meaning of the religious factor in a mans philosophical
outlook will not, of course, prevent certain views and interpretations from
losing their force and becoming obsolete, as a result of changes in the
times, in the social conditions, and in the development of human
consciousness. The old mythologems upon which all religion is ultimately
based are, as we now see them, the expression of inner psychic events and
experiences; and, by means of a ritualistic anamnesis, they enable the
conscious mind to preserve its link with the unconscious, which continues
to send out or ecphorate the primordial images just as it did in the
remote past. These images give adequate expression to the unconscious,
and its instinctive movements can in that way be transmitted to the
conscious mind without friction, so that the conscious mind never loses
touch with its instinctive roots. If, however, certain of these images
become antiquated, if, that is to say, they lose all intelligible connection
with our contemporary consciousness, then our conscious acts of choice
and decision are sundered from their instinctive roots, and a partial
disorientation results, because our judgment then lacks any feeling of
definiteness and certitude, and there is no emotional driving-force behind
decision. The collective representations that connect primitive man with
the life of his ancestors or with the founders of his tribe form the bridge to
the unconscious for civilized man also, who, if he is a believer, will see it
as the world of divine presences. Today these bridges are in a state of
partial collapse, and the doctor is in no position to hold those who are
worst hit responsible for the disaster. He knows that it is due far more to a
shifting of the whole psychic situation over many centuries, such as has
happened more than once in human history. In the face of such
transformations the individual is powerless.
7
[252]
The doctor can only look on and try to understand the attempts at
restitution and cure which nature herself is making. Experience has long
shown that between conscious and unconscious there exists a
compensatory relationship, and that the unconscious always tries to make
whole the conscious part of the psyche by adding to it the parts that are
missing, and so prevent a dangerous loss of balance. In our own case, as
might be expected, the unconscious produces compensating symbols
which are meant to replace the broken bridges, but which can only do so
with the active co-operation of consciousness. In other words, these
symbols must, if they are to be effective, be understood by the consciousmind; they must be assimilated and integrated. A dream that is not
understood remains a mere occurrence; understood, it becomes a living
experience.
[253]
I therefore consider it my main task to examine the manifestations of
the unconscious in order to learn its language. But since, on the one hand,
the theoretical assumptions we have spoken of are of eminently historical
interest, and, on the other hand, the symbols produced by the unconscious
derive from archaic modes of psychic functioning, one must, in carrying
out these investigations, have at ones comm and a vast amount of
historical material; and, secondly, one must bring together and collate an
equally large amount of empirical material based on direct observation.
[254]
The practical need for a deeper understanding of the products of the
unconscious is sufficiently obvious. In pursuit of this, I am only going
further along the path taken by Freud, though I certainly try to avoid
having any preconceived metaphysical opinions. I try rather to keep to
first-hand experience, and to leave metaphysical beliefs, either for or
against, to look after themselves. I do not imagine for a moment that I can
stand above or beyond the psyche, so that it would be possible to judge it,
as it were, from some transcendental Archimedean point outside. I am
fully aware that I am entrapped in the psyche and that I cannot do anything
except describe the experiences that there befall me. When, for instance,
one examines the world of fairytales, one can hardly avoid the impression
that one is meeting certain figures again and again, albeit in altered guise.
Such comparisons lead on to what the student of folklore calls the
investigation of motifs. The psychologist of the unconscious proceeds no
differently in regard to the psychic figures which appear in dreams,
fantasies, visions, and manic ideas, as in legends, fairytales, myth, and
religion. Over the whole of this psychic realm there reign certain motifs,
certain typical figures which we can follow far back into history, and even
into prehistory, and which may therefore legitimately be described as
archetypes. They seem to me to be built into the very structure of mans
unconscious, for in no other way can I explain why it is that they occur
universally and in identical form, whether the redeemer-figure be a fish, a
hare, a lamb, a snake, or a human being. It is the same redeemer-figure in a
variety of accidental disguises. From numerous experiences of this kind I
have come to the conclusion that the most individual thing about man is
8surely his consciousness, but that his shadow, by which I mean the
uppermost layer of his unconscious, is far less individualized, the reason
being that a man is distinguished from his fellows more by his virtues than
by his negative qualities. The unconscious, however, in its principal and
most overpowering manifestations, can only be regarded as a collective
phenomenon which is everywhere identical, and, because it never seems to
be at variance with itself, it may well possess a marvellous unity and self-
consistency, the nature of which is at present shrouded in impenetrable
darkness. Another fact to be considered here is the existence today of
parapsychology, whose proper subject is manifestations that are directly
connected with the unconscious. The most important of these are the ESP
phenomena, which medical psychology should on no account ignore. If
these phenomena prove anything at all, it is the fact of a certain psychic
relativity of space and time, which throws a significant light on the unity
of the collective unconscious. For the present, at any rate, only two groups
of facts have been established with any certainty: firstly, the congruence of
individual symbols and mythologems; and secondly, the phenomenon of
extra-sensory perception. The interpretation of these phenomena is
reserved for the future.
9

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

IN CHAPTERS TITLE

1.09_-_Fundamental_Questions_of_Psycho_therapy

IN CHAPTERS CLASSNAME

IN CHAPTERS TEXT

1.09_-_Fundamental_Questions_of_Psycho_therapy

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 18:55:25
260828 site hits