Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

The purpose of this thread is to open up discussion, and critique, of Jung’s concepts. It is a little long, but hope you’ll spend some time reading this and appreciate that I have made the effort to type out this myself (so please forgive typo’s!)

I will be quoting from “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious” (Routledge, Second Edition) and paraphrasing when I feel it is necessary.
To start off …

Archetypes of the Collective unconscious (p.1-?)
“A more or less superficial layer of the unconscious is undoubtedly personal. I call it the personal unconscious. But this personal unconscious rests upon a deeper layer, which does not derive from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn. This deeper layer I call the collective unconscious. I have chosen “collective” because this part of the unconscious is not indivdual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behaviour that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. It is, in other words, identical in all men abd thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a suprapersonal nature which is present in every one of us.

Psychic existence can be recognized only by the presence of contents that are capable of consciousness. We can therefore speak of an unconscious only in so far as we are able to demonstrate its contents. The contents of the personal unconscious are chiefly the feeling-toned complexes, as they are called; they constitute the personal and private side of psychic life. The contents of the collective unconscious, on the other hand, are known as archetypes.

… The archetype is essentially an unconscious content that is altered by becoming conscious and by being perceived, and it takes its colour from the individual conscoiusness in which it happens to appear.”
To add clarity to these selected passages all Jung is saying is that we’re born with certain inbuilt functions that act independent of conscious awareness. What we experience in life does fall into the unconscious and can be recalled to some degree. And by this process the “collective unconscious” remains completely beyond the realm of conscious perception, but we come to know of it by way of how its contents impact upon us, and this is where the “archetype” comes in.

I will give a brief outline of what it is that Jung is referring to when he uses the term “archetype” as it is often taken to mean something quite different. The most difficult thing I have found in trying to explain this term is getting people to see that the archetype of “mother” or “trickster” is not the very same thing for everyone. In many respects it is likely more helpful if you regarded the archetype of say “mother” as being one whole spectrum of personal experience. By this I mean the mother figure can be anything form an enraged and fearsome aspect of your unconscious or a maternal and caring aspect. The dichotomy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ makes the same aspect appear as two entirely different things (in a “glass half-full” or “glass half-empty” manner.)

By this we could look at dream contents. If I dream about some figure it Is not the same figure you dream about even though we are both human beings who share a commonality of experience and a certain disposition (which we could term “collective unconscious”.) In a dream some content may mean one thing specifically to me and something entirely different to you depending on your own personal experiences. The underlying interpretation is set upon the frame work of the collective unconscious and when this content passes into some form of perceivable expression does it leave some pattern in its wake. If you think about this on a purely reductionist and biological genetic level it may be more easy to grasp?

Anyway, back to Jung because he puts this across quite well in the following passages as to what “archetype” means.

Concerning the Archetypes and the Anima Concept (p.56)
“…These reflections are essential when discussing an empirical concept like that of anima. As against the constantly reiterated prejudice that this is a theoretical invention or – worse still – sheer mythology, I must emphasize that the concept of the anima is a purely empirical concept, whose sole purpose is to give a name to a group of related or analogous psychic phenomena. The concept does no more and means no more than, shall we say, the concept “arthropods,” which includes all animals with articulated body and limbs and so gives a name to this phenomenological group. The prejudice I have mentioned stems, regrettable thought this is, from ignorance. My critics are not acquainted with the phenomena in question, for these lie mostly outside the pale of merely medical knowledge, in the realm of universal human experience. But the psyche, which the medical man has to do with, does not worry about the limitations of his knowledge; it manifests a life of its own and reacts to influences coming from every field of human experience. Its nature shows itself not merely in the personal sphere, or in the instinctual or social, but in phenomena of world-wide distribution. So if we want to understand the psyche, we have to include the whole world. For practical reasons we can, indeed must, delimit our fields of work, but this should be done only with conscious recognition of limitation. The more complex the phenomena which we have to do with in practical treatment, the wider must be our frame of reference and the greater the corresponding knowledge.

Anyone, therefore, who does not know the universal distribution and significance of the syzygy motif in the psychology of primitives, in mythology, in comparative religion, and in the history of literature, can hardly claim to say anything about the concept of the anima. His knowledge of the psychology of the neuroses may give him some idea of it, but it is only a knowledge of its general phenomenology that could open his eyes to the real meaning of what he encounters in individual cases. Often in pathologically distorted form.”
The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious (p.22-3)
“…the collective conscious is anything but an encapsulated personal system; it is sheer objectivity, as wide as the world and open to all the world. There I am the object of every subject, in complete reversal of my ordinary consciousness, where I am always the subject that has an object. There I am utterly on with the world, so much so that I forget all too easily who I really am. “Lost in oneself” is a good way of describing this state. But this self is the world, if only a consciousness could see it. That is why we must know who we are.

The unconscious no sooner touches us than we are it – we become unconscious of ourselves. That is the age-old danger, instinctively known and feared by primitive man, who himself stands so very close to this pleroma. His consciousness is still uncertain, wobbling on its feet. It is still childish, having just emerged from the primal waters. A wave of the unconscious may easily roll over it, and then he forgets who he was and does things that are strange to him. Hence primitives are afraid of uncontrolled emotions, because consciousness breaks down under them and give sway to possession. All man’s strivings have therefore been directed towards the consolidation of consciousness. This was the purpose of rite and dogma; they were dams and walls to keep back the dangers of the unconscious, the “perils of the soul.” Primitive rites consist accordingly in the exorcizing of spirits, the lifting of spells, the averting of evil omen, propitiation, purification, and the production by sympathetic magic of helpful occurrences.

Whether primitive or not, mankind always stands on the brink of actions it performs itself but does not control. The whole world wants peace and the whole world prepares for war, to take but one example. Mankind is powerless against mankind, and the gods, as ever, show it the ways of fate. Today we call gods “factors,” which comes from facere, “to make”. The makers stand behind the wings of the world-theatre. It is so in great things as in small. In the realm of consciousness we are our own masters; we seem to be the “factors” themselves. But if we step through the door of the shadow we discover with terror that we are the objects of unseen factors. To know this is decidedly unpleasant, for nothing is more disillusioning than the discovery of our own inadequacy. It can even give rise to primitive panic, because, instead of being believed in, the anxiously guarded supremacy of consciousness – which is in truth one of the secrets of human success – is questioned in the most dangerous way. But since ignorance is no guarantee of security, and in fact only makes our insecurity still worse, it is probably better despite our fear to know where danger lies.”
This is from a book of around 400 pages so I’ve done my best to pick out pieces from the first section of this book to give some idea of what is meant by “archetypes” and “collective unconscious”. Hopefully you’ll appreciate that this was written some years ago (the latest I think being 1954.)

Also, I hope it has distanced your thoughts from regarding Jung as a “mystic” and looking upon his work as that of a dedicated scientist who had an immense interest in the human condition. His work was practical and he dealt with real people and their problems. The process of “Individuation” is a very interesting one alongside many other “archetypal” themes, such as death, rebirth and balance.

For a more accessible representation of the archetypes I would suggest going into youtube and listening to lecture by Jordan Peterson where he goes through The Lion King showing by example of what the Jungian Archetypes are all about.
AKA badgerjelly
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Is he saying the collective unconscious is not based on personal experience, that it is innate?
It seems to me the collective unconscious is realized from personal experience, and the observations of cultural norms. How are archetypes such as trickster and hero innate? I don't see how those aren't learned from observation. And how wide a range does each archetype cover? It seems like one person could also go from one archetype to another, like from hero to mentor, or hero to villain. If so, how are these archetypes not just descriptions of behavior at a particular moment?
(hope you don't mind questions, as I am obviously not familiar with jung, only googled different archetypes)
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Max -

I started the thread to explicate the meanings of these terms. I certainly don't mind questions about them.

The first thing is very obvious. Unconscious content is that we are not conscious of. Jung refers to two different types of "unconscious". Your life experience and memories are the personal unconscious whilst the collective unconscious is that innate source that gives rise to experience in the first place. As unconscious content bleeds into consciousness it obviously has to change to become conscious. The archetypes are the way the collective unconscious is presented to consciousness.

Jung did a lot of hard work and put together a whoel host of different mythologies and instances from his patients. He noticed over some considerable time that certain images kept popping up in his patients fantasies and these related to mythological symbols.

I think the most common archetype we can refer to would be Mother. The Mother represents nature and the feminine (not female), and nature is often seen in mythological stories as a dark and forbidden forest not just a maternal protector. There is a 'Shadow' which is another important Jungian concept. When you ask about range it doesn't really make sense to ask this. Like Jung says we could ask what is the range of mammals or ants in the species of creatures alive on Earth. He used the term "collective" to represent a common innate feature of all humans (as we all abide by a certain biological set of functions and these are represented in some fashion in our day-to-day life.) There is no singular form of "mother" or "trickster" we can refer to and pass around between us, as real life is very complex.

You say one person could go from one archetype to another. This is a misunderstanding. We don't move from archetype to archetype. They are presentations of the unconscious in our day-to-day actions. They are not separate from us they are an innate part of us and present themselves to people in different ways under different circumstances and in differing cultural attitudes often through mythological content.

Other more commonly referred to archetypes are the hero and the serpent. The theme of sacrifice and rebirth is common and the conflict of the hero with the dragon is another very prevalent theme we can clearly see represented across eons of human history and recorded in literary works. These are condensed asepect of who we are and how we approach life. Slaying the dragon is dangerous, we could even die attempting to do so, but the reward of gold/maiden is something we may be willing to risk our lives for. The trickster comes in because we may fool ourselves into believing that conquering the dragin will give us a prize, but we may be too naïve to know how to take or use the prize (and nature is not "fair", this is represented by the darkness and chaos of the primeval forest, the destructive force of mother nature.)

Just descriptions of behavior at a particular moment? They are descriptions of our innate being known to us as best we can know them. As I have stated already the unconscious is unconscious, I cannot know of it directly yet I think we are all aware that we act in certain ways sometimes without knowing why we do so, or even blinding ourselves and tricking ourselves into thinking the world is at fault not us (this is where pathologies rise to the fore.)

A lot of these things ties into what we now know about human behavior and the biology involved. We are primed to react in certain ways to certain stimuli regardless of conscious intent. I don't wish to over simplify the complexity of this, but simply to explain roughly what I mean by example we act differently if started at, we fear animals with big sharp pointy teeth, and we're especially primed to avoid snakes (makes a lot of sense as our ancestors once lived in trees and no doubt died because of snakes) - also other primates visual ability correlates to how many snakes live in the area, the more snakes native to the land the better the vision of the primate.

What you have to appreciate is that Jung was psychoanalyst not a biologist. He was far from unintelligent and could read/speak several different ancient languages. He made a careful log of his patients and recorded over 10,000 dreams, treated people who were schitzophrenic and because of this found a common pattern related to mythological content and religious symbolism.

For me the most telling piece of evidence is in shamanic practice. Although shamanic practice differs in many ways and sometimes is combined into religious systems there are some quite striking commonalities from the Artic to Africa, to South America and to Australia, where there is a predominant theme of initiation that involves the shaman journeying to the underworld, being torn to shreds (effectly dying) and then being reborn again. There is a case that some of this may have been passed on culturally from tribe to tribe in some instances, but the global natur eof this phenomenon seems to explicate something innately human. WHat is more this can be seen as subsisting in religious symbolism and I imagine it does not take you much to imagine some religious figure to whom death and rebirth is a familiar story? Then just take a glance at Egyptian, Norse, Greek or Aztec mythology and you'll see the very same themes being expressed in a more social context than the initiation process of shamans.

So the most important thing to take away from this is that there is not ONE singular representation of an archetype. They follow a common form and also have their shadow forms, such as with mother nature as both a maternal and caring force and a rageful defensive mother, the father figure as a dictator or as merely a force of structure and discipline. In this sense the feminine is often framed as fertile, volatile or chaotic, and the masculine as forceful, structured and ordered.

If you care to have a better explanation I would suggest watching Jordan Peterson's commentary on The Lion King which he uses to show what the archetypes mean (just paste that into youtube and it will show up). Every movie I watch I see them come through. Often you'll be taken in by a movie and not know why it is so good. I have found it is really because the archetypes are presented very distinctly within the narrative either as characters or in a more abstract sense.
AKA badgerjelly
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Maxcady10001 »

Can certain archetypes be representative of more or less consciousness? For example, the hero and the villain in the lion king. it seemed as though Scar, the villain, was far more aware of "reality" than Mufasa or Simba, and his shadow was less encompassing of "reality" than theirs. And, when thinking of other movies and stories, it usually follows that the villain is more aware of "reality" than the hero. And by reality I mean the events taking place, capabilities of the characters, and character motivations. The villain always seems to have an insight into "reality", and is able to exploit. Something Peterson mentioned frequently was the rationality of villains, he referred specifically to Scar's intelligence an rationality. Villains always seem to be more rational than the hero. Is their rationality indicative of greater consciousness than other archetypes like the hero?
I don't know if you have seen the Dark Knight Trilogy, but each of the villains confront the hero (Batman) with a clarity and awareness that Batman is unable to handle at first, then overcomes through superior force. I'm referring to Bane and The Joker, both of whom, possess awareness (societal insights) Batman does not, evidenced through almost all of their encounters. This greater awareness that villains have, seems evident in almost every movie or story I've encountered , so are certain archetypes representative of a less encompassing and denser shadow self?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Scar is the shadow of Musafa. They both hold the position of ruler and one is structured, firm and wise, whilst the other is authoritarian and destructive, bringing about disease and death to the land.

I wouldn't conflate "villain" or "anti-hero" with Jungian archetypes myself. They are usually used in literary commentaries.

I am not sure what your initial question means? Can archetypes be representative of consciousness? I think you question, or rather how I see it, may help shed more light on what an archetype is.

By this I mean the hardest thing for many to accept is that what we are conscious of is directed by unconscious 'complexes'. We can never be sure what these complexes are absolutely and so many dismiss the concept of 'archetypes' because they want to see behind the curtain (so to speak.) We know of things we have been conscious of in the past, and sometimes buried memories reveal themselves that explain a certain habit induced through trauma or some other such experience. These are the personal unconscious and we understand them as something that has consciously happened and had a lasting unconscious effect upon our day-to-day actions; and such revelation is led by the collective unconscious in the form of archetypes of Death and Rebirth, of transformation. We do not consciously decide to recall a childhood trauma or a long lost memory, this process is blind to consciousness even though we may catalyse it being brought forth.

Talking about the archetypes here is quite obviously a conscious thing we are doing. What we are essentially talking about is something we cannot define directly, but understanding this at least allows us to encapsulate the "species" of archetypes, and as Jung himself says it is better to talk about "archetypes" rather than assume some singular "archetype" because we're in no positon to say such a thing.

I think Peterson may have mentioned "reality" in these terms ... "reality" is chaos, in is the force of nature and is endlessly dangerous. What we have is a means to structure "reality" that allows us to navigate through it without being totally lost at sea. The problem here is that we could equally say that there is as much danger in the structures we use to navigate reality as there is in reality. In The Lion King Simba has the choice to become a hero, he does not start out as a hero and his father is a representation of the vulnerability of the structure with which we navigate through reality. Reality is not evil it is merely an endless potential, but any sharp change in the structure will allow chaos to enter, yet at the same time too much rigidity will leave the structure prone to shattering (maybe an an even more destructive manner?), so the "shadow" plays the role of keeping us alive, keeping us open to our own inadequacies and helps us grow stronger. The hero is that which faces chaos and returns with a reward, they heroic because they face hell and are nto found wanting, they take on just enough of what they can. In this sense, on the psychoanalytic level, some past trauma or experience will only reveal itself to the conscious when it is able to face up to it in some fashion (but even then it may be found wanting.)

Archetypes are not "rational" because they are conscious aspects of the collective unconscious. We rationally frame the phenomenon as "archetypes" because we are conscious. We are in no position to talk about tbhe rationality of the collective unconscious and can only view anything of it after the matter of fact and from a very limited perspective. Physical sciences work in much the same way and suffer the same limitations upon that which can be observed.

I think your point about Batman is a good one that again shows something about the problem of rigid structure. Our picture of reality is deemed more or less complete in order for us to move forward and plan things out. What these "villains" reveal is a very scary truth we've actively set up to guide us that, by circumstances, hide us from a greater danger. There are hard truths that we simply refuse to accept and so act out blindly and passively as if they don't exist. Eventually reality will reveal itself to us and the unconscious will break the structure down at its weakest points and allow chaos to enter our conscious reality. When Batman overcomes the villains he has to sacrifice something in order to do so (another common theme that is quite obviously part of the human condition) and even when he's beaten down over and over again he refsues to move back into the delusion of his previous ignorance and becomes a heroic figure, he overcomes himself and his faults, he transforms into the Dark Knight, he accepts his shadow and uses it. The same theme can be seen with most powerful characters in narratives. If they misuse their power they risk falling into a spiral of despair, yet at the same time they have no real idea how to use their power and may even refuse to use it at all. Accepting the power and force you have is to accept your shadow.

If we now look at religious symbolism, born out of societies that have had some success (hence their mythological structures have survived to some degree) we can see some common thematic representations. The wealth of current movies we have today is a further refinement of these and often they are sourced from mythological stories, and even when they are not the very same themes bleed through because they are innately human themes. Given that the west is basically founded upon a Judeo-Christian heritage we can learn a lot about ourselves through exploring the basic foundations of our modern mythology (by modern I mean pretty much since the advent of writing because the past few thousand years is recent in the expanse of human existence.)

At the very simplistic level we all know that new experience are useful and dangerous. What makes us decide to explore the world? Do we rationally decide to do this or act upon impulse? I can tell you than when you are dying of thirst or in some way at deaths door you will get more and more unconscious contents spewing into your awareness and you'll be unable to hold back the tide.

Your point about "intelligence" and "rationality" is not really something that makes sense when referring to the unconscious. Our primitive and extremely effective neural functions are VERY well tuned to do what they do (they've evolved over millions of years to be able to balance our entire biochemistry.) Does it make sense to say they are "intelligent" or "rational"? To me it makes no sense to say this at all any more than I would say mother nature is good or bad. We only frame things in such a way because that is how we've best managed to balance ourselves structurally against the unknown. Humans are certainly the most extraordinary of all the life forms on Earth. We're capable of hindsight and forethought in a way no other species comes close (it is very interesting to look at the Greek mythology in this area too. Not many people know about Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Here we see again a theme of humanities dualistic nature, one revered and one ridiculed, but ironically both of equal value. This is the use of the shadow form revealed.)

The "villains" have greater knowledge because they represent chaos/nature. Nature is neither a liar nor good. If we face what nature reveals we can put it to good use, if we ignore it then regardless its truth will still be there and may destroy us.

To reiterate from the OP this is how Jung puts across this point more eloquently:
"...But if we step through the door of the shadow we discover with terror that we are the objects of unseen factors. To know this is decidedly unpleasant, for nothing is more disillusioning than the discovery of our own inadequacy. It can even give rise to primitive panic, because, instead of being believed in, the anxiously guarded supremacy of consciousness – which is in truth one of the secrets of human success – is questioned in the most dangerous way. But since ignorance is no guarantee of security, and in fact only makes our insecurity still worse, it is probably better despite our fear to know where danger lies.”
In a physicalistic existential sense we tend to view the world as inner and outer, nature as existing "out there" in all her might. The reality is that we are wholly enveloped from the "inside" and "outside", on numerous levels of intensity. Our DNA does not define who we are alone, nor do our individual cells, organs or neurons, not to mention the superstructure of society through which we have a sense of "self" in the first place. The complexity on every level of physical existence that we understand and scientifically delineate saturates these phenomenal experiences. In this sense it may be a good way to understand what is meant by "archetypes" in terms of reducing experience as far down into solipsism as you can. When things stop making rational sense that is likely known in some relative sense against the "archetypal forms" that produce your sense of being. On a physical/biochemical level we can also tie this into neuroendocrinology and further refine the ideas of these underlying functions by examining the role of dopamine, cortisol, testosterone and countless other hormones - at this level I see more to persuade me of the use of the concept of archetypes than not. Although in the future I can well see some kind of refinement of Jung's ideas (I wouldn't count Dawkins "memes" as being a particularly prominent case for this.)

I don't mean to write so much and would just like to thank you for giving me the ammunition to help me practice expressing all these complex ideas. You can probably tell this is a topic I find immeasurably useful and fascinating. :D
AKA badgerjelly
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Maxcady10001 »

My initial question was a confusion of the collective and personal unconscious and couldn't help. What I was trying to ask was can a certain archetype be associated with a certain structure of the personal unconscious, is the structure of the personal unconscious of the villain archetype typically less rigid and smaller than the hero's? You mentioned the villain being greater knowledge as nature, so if a person's unconscious is the presentation of the archetype of villain, is the personal unconscious' structure typically less rigid and less encompassing of "reality"?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Well, I am not sure exactly what you mean by, "and couldn't help", but I'll try and answer.

I think it is fair to say any archetype holding sway of the personal unconscious to too greater an extent would lead to quite obvious pathological conditions (phobias and such.) Also note that Jung himself says "archetypes" not "archetype" - I will get to Wittgenstein later about this point.

None of the archetypal complexes are "bigger" or "smaller". Some are more prominent than others depending on the experience and general make-up of an individual and they are not. It is not a case of "knowledge" per se. What I was saying is that every problem we come across has a beneficial solution, the obstacles once overcome give up some reward.

In talking about "reality" in this manner it would be good if you appreciated the general view of phenomenology. It is not the case for "reality" that there are rigidly defined delineations. The thing is we can only "know" by setting limits (by demarcating through our structural interpretations.) Our structures are certainly "valued" because we have some frame of understanding and "know ourselves" because of this. It goes without saying that we are very much in the dark in many respects.

From person to person the obstacle (the "villain") may be too great a threat for them so they'll move past them and look for a different route. In some cases this may be the wiser choice and this is why Jung would talk about understanding yourself so you can judge the extent of the danger and our capacity to "fix" things.

The personal consciousness is quite obviously recognizable by conscious experience given that that is where it manifests from. The collective unconscious is that which directs consciousness into being. Think of the old saying of never being able to cross the same river twice. In this respect any attempt to connect with the collective unconscious, or even the personal unconscious, brings it into consciousness. The main difference here is that the personal unconscious can be seen much more clearly after the matter of fact, the truth behind your habits will be revealed to yourself and you'll know their truth. The collective unconscious merely bleeds through the personal unconscious and then into consciousness. It is less distinct and far less tangible and utterly unknowable directly. The personal unconscious is a recollection where the collective unconscious is what makes you human. It is best not to think of the archetypes as living entities of the psyche. We simply frame them this way because that is how humans see things, for us thinking about "love" or "success" as a symbolic person is how we naturally deal with experiences because we're very social animals.

In a sense to understand the phenomenological position it could be useful to view everything as a pure illusion. By doing so you don't slip into solipsism, but reveal the patterns of experience. If you can do this then every item you think about reveals a limitless depth of understanding around it, and yet you understand that you necessarily limit your understanding to grasp it in the first place (this is where a word acts as a good reference although it is analogous because language is another form of express down the line of conscious being.) In this sense, like Wittgenstein pointed out, every word is understood not as a separate entity, but as part of a greater structure. A language with one expression is not a language. Without a greater structural context all meaning is absent, there is only chaos and consciousness has no understanding of chaos it merely fears it and tries to build from within it and hold together some sense of meaning.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Count Lucanor »

I would summarize my interpretation of what C. Jung did. He took the reverse path of Structural Anthropology: instead of taking the myth as a product of intersubjective relations in cultural practices, mediated by symbolic structures, he takes the symbolic structures as predating the cultural practices and governing subjective and intersubjective relations. So, Jung's interpretations of myths somehow seem to make some sense, as they reveal an unconscious structure behind the symbols, which is exactly what Structuralist did, as well as Freud. But both Freud and Jung placed these human structures (patterns, archetypes) outside of the human domain, although imposed over it, as a priori concepts of an innate psyche. Of this, of course, there's very little or no evidence. Even though that dreams are proposed as the objective material upon which the serious scientist does his research, the truth is that the researcher works with subjective experiences, which become objective as narrations. As such, they imply a semantic construction mediated by acquired language and other cultural tools. The "material" is therefore not isolated in experimental conditions, the "evidence" comes by default tainted by the filters of culture and personal limitations (the subject could be lying or not recalling the dream accurately). The gates are then opened for philosophical speculation with the deliberate aim of avoiding the supposed materialist reductionism of Western science. And there enters mysticism.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Count -

It sounds a little like you're still persuaded by the dead idea of the brain as "tabula rasa"? I am assuming I am wrong about this, but cannot help point out a hint of this. You say "acquired language", but I hope you see the fault here (the semantic problem, funnily enough!) in that our capacity for language is innate. In this sense we are born with emotions already embedded in our make-up and numerous basic functions with which we then sensibly engage about the world. We can correlate emotions and other things to material evidences, such as hormonal regulation, in built instinctual reaction to certain sensible stimuli. In this sense we could well refer to the evidence of archetypal patterns as being driven by nothing other than hormonal secretions, and although these are under the influence of sensible experience they are, if you're willing to hold to the reductionist view, obviously a product of more than some form of "external" experience. This is where material reduction ceases to fit the purpose because we cannot step "outside" when we realise that there is no dualism.

We are most certainly born with certain human qualities that are not very well understood. Material reductionism has a limit and since Jung's time we've learnt a great deal more about neuroendocrinology and more about the role of genes. Knowledge of DNA was once beyond the domain of human understanding. Jung is not saying that we cannot come to understand things better only that there is a limit upon material evidence (I don't feel I have need to talk about Kant here and the infamous "thing in itself"?)

Also, the tainting is part of the whole picture. What we attempt to do with such a wide reaching idea is understand its limits. I would find it rather bizarre to deny the existence of repeated themes strewn across millennia. It is a false claim to say there is an effort to avoid material reductism. I am not denying the clear similarities expressed across world mythology and religious practices. They exist today and have been recorded historically to some degree over the past several millennia. Prior to that we have circumstantial evidences of shamanic practices that have almost identical symbolic forms (the tree of life, journey to the underworld, the death and rebirth, communication with spirits.) What we also know about altered states of consciousness is that they are induced under various physical conditions which include sensory deprivation, fasting, trance dance, chanting, hyperventilation and generally through putting the body under certain stresses. In schitzophrenia it is somelike a waking dream which is obviously of great potential danger. In these states physical reality is merely a background, a memory of experiences through which the unconscious interprets itself. In altered states of consciousness the structural view of the world becomes more plastic and more exploratitive; this is both a danger and a boon. From such states deep problems can be seen under a new light and overcome, yet the individual may easily fall into states of obsession and fixatedness (this kind of thing is referred to as "religiosity" by some anthropologists.)

On an instinctual level we see inbuilt fears accumulating and expressing themselves as mythical beasts. The snake is an age old adversary of the human species, as are lbig cats and generaly most creepy crawlies. These forms represent fearful view of nature and at the same time combines with the expression of the "hero" as conquering the "beast" and coming away either rewarded in a material sense or with greater knowledge (look at all the uses of the snake/serpent across world mythos. It is undeniably prominent and beyond mere coincidence. It is an instinctual part of how humans have survived, as is the clear reference to reoccurrances of the tree of life across all mythology.)

What I will grant you is such a wide reaching principle is very easily taken up by people with select pieces of knowledge and making some obtuse claims about the nature of human being. You are very rigyht to comment about how dreams can be interpreted, and if you read more of Jung and his comments about things like personality and dream interpretation, he make very clear warnings about deep analysis of such items. All symbolism is personal, yet there is undoubtedly a commonality to humans use of symbols otherwise we'd never be able to interact.

I will stop here for now and just comment that the subjective experience and interpretation still has value. I can perfectly understand how it must be approached with deep skepticism though. My previous comment about my misgivings of Jung would be in his preface to the I Ching, translated by Wolfhiem?-someone or other (sorry forgotten his name), but even there I was surprised that he seemed to be commenting on something I had found myself through use of tarot cards. I won't get into it right now but what I found was quite understandbale by any rational person and maybe I have assumed Jun gwas saying the same thing as me, but simply worded it rather badly and left it open to certain "new age" misrepresentation. Either way I will explain this later and let you respond to the above.

Thanks for your time, and yours too max :)
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Atreyu »

My main criticism of Jung is simply that his thesis seems incoherent.

For example, what's the difference between his "collective unconscious" idea and simply just saying something like: 'In reality, we are really one. We are part of some greater thing or entity. Therefore, there is a certain underlying order and consistency in how we think and feel.' ?

IMO, throwing out terms like "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" only makes the underlying concept more difficult to understand.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Count Lucanor »

Burning ghost wrote: Count -

It sounds a little like you're still persuaded by the dead idea of the brain as "tabula rasa"? I am assuming I am wrong about this, but cannot help point out a hint of this.
No, I abandoned any notion of tabula rasa many years ago, as well as the opposite conception that everything in our brains is pre-wired, as Evolutionary Psychologists like to think. The reality of human cognition falls somewhere in between, having the possibilty of some modules of specialized functions for "psychological strategies" dealing with emotions, found in the subcortex across all mammals, and at the same time a massive general-purpose neocortical system that processes these aroused emotions. Our senses are also specialized by evolutionary adaptations to filter experience in a particular way. In any case, when we talk about both modularized and non-modularized brain operations, we refer to functions, processes, not already ellaborated concepts (developed in experience, a posteriori, by the higher cognitive processes of the neocortex) as Jungian archetypes or patterns imply. From a Kantian perspective, the a priori concepts of time and space are also very far from this.
Burning ghost wrote:You say "acquired language", but I hope you see the fault here (the semantic problem, funnily enough!) in that our capacity for language is innate.
That's the disputable hypothesis advanced by Chomsky, which owes something to brain modularity. Even so, I'm willing to give it acceptance and let's say there is indeed a universal grammar, but that in no way gives room to a universal symbolic structure. Chomsky's view points at innate structural rules of linguistic functions, but meanings are still needed to be learned from experience. And let it be noted also that Chomsky himself talks about language acquisition and his hypothesis revolves around a so called Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
Burning ghost wrote:In this sense we are born with emotions already embedded in our make-up and numerous basic functions with which we then sensibly engage about the world. We can correlate emotions and other things to material evidences, such as hormonal regulation, in built instinctual reaction to certain sensible stimuli. In this sense we could well refer to the evidence of archetypal patterns as being driven by nothing other than hormonal secretions, and although these are under the influence of sensible experience they are, if you're willing to hold to the reductionist view, obviously a product of more than some form of "external" experience. This is where material reduction ceases to fit the purpose because we cannot step "outside" when we realise that there is no dualism.
All this engagement with the world, even though being driven by natural biological impulses, arises in response to actually experiencing the environment. It is not built a priori and there's no evidence that symbolic social constructions are imprinted in the genetic makeup and inherited through biological reproduction. Most of the basic regulation mechanisms, like endocrine systems, are shared with other species. If there were any universal symbolic patterns associated with these regulations, Jung's theory would have to take them into account and extend it to a broad group of animals and species. What has a zebra to do with the magician archetype?
Burning ghost wrote:Also, the tainting is part of the whole picture. What we attempt to do with such a wide reaching idea is understand its limits. I would find it rather bizarre to deny the existence of repeated themes strewn across millennia. It is a false claim to say there is an effort to avoid material reductism.
Repated themes in mythical thought and practices, as found by Anthropology, do not mean necessarily universal mythical patterns imprinted in our genes and resurfacing from a hidden psyche, but typical mental structures developed by experience and associated with typical situations encountered by humans. No doubt that Jung took the mythical motifs from the typical primitive mindsets studied by Lucien Levy-Bruhl and adapted his concept of collective representations to make his own of collective unconscious. But even though they look the same and C. Jung insists they are analogous, as I said, it is an inversion of the products of culture as pre-existing absolutes, for which there's no empirical support, as Jung claims.

About the deliberate avoidance of materialist explanations, one just has to read the pages dedicated by Jung to praise mythical thinking and religious images, to devalue reason and complain about the modern "impoverishment of symbols".
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Chili »

I think if you combine well-understood materialist evolutionary explanations with some involvement of "the other side" as suggested by reincarnation narratives, most of this stuff is covered well that way. A lot of Jung's efforts appear to be trying to enclose all of the patterns there in a philosophical language of Plato & Kant - something inside our minds which influences our mental processing. The "unconscious mind" defined in away to open the door to past-life and other paranormal material.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Atreyu wrote:My main criticism of Jung is simply that his thesis seems incoherent.

For example, what's the difference between his "collective unconscious" idea and simply just saying something like: 'In reality, we are really one. We are part of some greater thing or entity. Therefore, there is a certain underlying order and consistency in how we think and feel.' ?

IMO, throwing out terms like "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" only makes the underlying concept more difficult to understand.
Because he was not a mystic, he was a scientist. He was well aware of many mystical sayings. He is not simply saying "We are all one." Incoherent? I would say they are concepts that are quite difficult to grasp for some. I have heard people say that reading Jung took considerable effort on their part, for me it was very easy. That is not to say I am better than them only that my general outlook relates to Jung's (especially in regard to phenomenology.)

I think it is fair to say the collective unconscious of the psyche is somewhat analogous to more material forms like DNA. I do admit this is a rather crass analogy, but saying such has helped some people I know understand what Jung was looking at more carefully. Psychology most certainly deals with the material world, but at its heart psychology deals with the human subject and human subjectivity which is framed in intersubjective society. Empirically measured evidence, gathered by scientific means, is aimed at reducing phenomenon so it is solidified. The opinion means nothing to science and neither does the raw data. Science has nothing to say about anything it merely measures and calculates margins of error the whole time directed by humans trying not to be human. You can probably grasp the difficulty of psychology in this respect. Psychology is a field wholly compelled to understand the human not the physiology of the human. This is a discussion I really would like to take up in greater depth in the future (I will be ordering some books by Husserl soon because of my interest in this area and will likely start a thread on this in the near future.)

Count -

I'll respond later/tomorrow. Please don't add anything more before then unless absolutely necessary. Thanks :)

Chili -

I am not sure that is really discernable yet. Most of what I understand of scientific data goes against what Jung is saying (in the sense it would reduce the influence of some collective unconscious to be minimal at best.)

I have been watching lectures by Sapolsky recently (Highly recommended! He is both entertaining and informative) where he talks about Barbara McClintock and how she was ridiculed for talking about "jumping genes", only decades later to be proven right. She inferred something quite plain and clear to her but others thought the idea was insane. I view Jung in this sense. That is not to say I think his idea will, or can, be proven. I just find that it is a very rich area and that some of his thoughts are worth taking seriously regardless of the less palpable one's.

Jung certainly saw value in investigating supernatural/paranormal claims, as do I. Not because I think there is any truth to them on face value, but that the very fact that people think such things fascinates me and has done from a very young age. I think I am right when I say that both me and Jung would regard "the other side" as a phenomenon of interest not something to be necessarily believed in as true, but as something apparent as a human psychic activity ("psychic" as in psychological phenomenon, not some supernatural or extrasensory ability!)

One thing I remember reading about somewhere was the correlation between incubus and succubus, and reports of alien abduction. Since these reports we've learnt about sleep paralysis where people report feeling like they are "pinned down" and have a pressure on their "chest". The demons, in old historical reports, are said to have sat on the victims chest and raped them. What I remember reading was a comment about the fact that no alien abductions were reported before sci-fi movies. It seems very likely that the same phenomenon has been occurring since the beginning of human history and that we then associate it to current social mythos. So we can dismiss the existence of demons and aliens, but the actual phenomenon persists regardless. For us to say that it is just something brought about by some disconnection of bodily control and consciousness, and a hypnogogic state, does not change the felt experience of "something" overwhelming the person in question. This may be good for some people to understand this and they can then maybe cope with the fear. It does little to help us cope as a feeling subject though. If I go to the doctors and say I am in pain and he turns around after a full intense examination and says "There is nothing wrong with you" I would beg to differ. There have been many cases where people have "phantom" pain and they have been dismissed as liars. Only in recent times have we come to understand that there was something happening at a neurological level.

Sadly I think it is very difficult to get someone who is rigidly empirical to take a step back. There is certainly a disjoint between the way people frame what is "subjective" and what is "objective".
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Kathyd »

What is the difference between this idea of Archetypes and the general idea of a sort of "cosmic consciousness"?

It sounds like Jung is proposing that there is a kind of mind "out there", which acts as a sort of substrate through which our conscious experiences are filtered. Sort of like a matrix from whence consciousness arises.

Am I getting the basics of this idea?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Jungian Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Post by Burning ghost »

Kathyd wrote:What is the difference between this idea of Archetypes and the general idea of a sort of "cosmic consciousness"?

It sounds like Jung is proposing that there is a kind of mind "out there", which acts as a sort of substrate through which our conscious experiences are filtered. Sort of like a matrix from whence consciousness arises.

Am I getting the basics of this idea?
No, not really. That would be more akin to Platonic Archetypes. The Vedic scriptures follow that line of thought, Jung is looking at the "archetypes" as archetypes of the human species not some "cosmic consciousness" (that would be mysticism)

If that kind of idea interests you you might be interested in the work of Rupert Sheldrake, although I would err on the side of caution because he bravely attempts to deal with some very dangerous areas which opened him up to mass ridicule. His thoughts are certainly worth a look if you're open minded purely as an exercise of viewing a very much unorthodox view point!
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021