The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

Jung's Collected Works #9A

by C.G. Jung, Gerhard Adler (Editor), R.F.C. Hull (Translator)

Essays which state the fundamentals of Jung's psychological system: "On the Psychology of the Unconscious" and "The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious," with their original versions in an appendix.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Psychoanalysis, Mythology, Spirituality

496 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Carl Gustav Jung (/jʊŋ/; German: [ˈkarl ˈɡʊstaf jʊŋ]), often referred to as C. G. Jung, was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical psychology. Jung proposed and developed the concepts of extraversion and introversion; archetypes, and the collective unconscious. His work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, philosophy, archeology, anthropology, literature, and related fields. He was a prolific writer, many of whose works were not published until after his death.

The central concept of analytical psychology is individuation—the psychological process of integrating the opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development.

Jung created some of the best known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a popular psychometric instrument, has been developed from Jung's theory of psychological types.

Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life's work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung's interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science. His influence on popular psychology, the "psychologization of religion", spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Except his book on flying saucers, read in childhood, this was the first book I ever read by C.G. Jung. The experience led to a programme of study which occupied the next eight years, leading me to change college majors (history to religious studies) and to proceed to seminary upon graduation.

The occasion of the reading happened accidentally. Ed, an older friend from high school, had visited Grinnell from the University of Illinois, using my library card to check out books to study while in town. The Jung volume struck my fancy. I'd heard of him, of course, heard of him of an associate of Freud, someone important, someone one ought know about. Besides, the book looked impressive: thick, lots of notes, an understated black cover. I asked to borrow it and began to read.

My immediate impression was that the author was extremely erudite, his text making reference not only to psychology, but to cultural anthropology, comparative religions, philosophy, theology, ancient history, the classics etc. I knew, generally, where it was pointing, but not very clearly what it was pointing at. Gnosticism, hermeticism, alchemy--all of which he took seriously--were little more than words referring to archaic and discredited belief systems to me. Besides, he seemed to be comfortable with Latin--which I'd taken, not very successfully, in high school--and with Greek--which was still "Greek to me." Reading Jung made me painfully aware of how vast my ignorance was. Rather than being depressing, though, I took it as a challenge.

Additionally, some of what Jung wrote about seemed to indicate that he and the persons and traditions he was concerned about knew something about those "altered states of consciousness" that I was exploring on almost a weekly basis--and that they took it seriously, very seriously. In other words, some of the archaic belief systems which I had previously dismissed were here being represented as stemming from experiences similar to ones very familiar and, sometimes, disturbing to me.

I finished this alluring and mystifying book, then, when next home in Illinois, began the long, expensive process of buying and reading every volume of The Collected Works as well as very many books about Jung, about his "analytical psychology" and about the various, often obscure, topics he addressed.

[Lindu Pindu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jung is a mystic who sounds like a scientist. This is why his books aren't so dry that they leave you wishing they would just end. Rather, your hope you must cling to is that you have the power to process the bulk, and then maybe get to all those notes and references to another thousand books and manuscripts in one lifetime.

A difficult book, discussing many symbols that might give clues to all of us about where we're coming from. I'm just wondering if the twitteresque society of today still births children who can draw complex mandalas at age 11, as one example in this book.

Anyway, the practical application of The Archetypes is that it made me start journaling again- you know, using visual art rather than long paragraphs to express a state of mind or something you might be going through. I haven't yet felt the need to draw a mandala, or maybe I'm just censoring myself, as they're so incredibly detailed and revealing. But yeah, drawing feels like a massage for the brain. I highly recommend it- either the book, or doodling with abandon!

2024 edit: I cringe when I read this now, what the 20-something me wrote. But I will leave it here for posterity's sake. To know that you too can be cringe and grow out of it!

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 4 out of 5]

В друга епоха и в друг живот Юнг би бил алхимик, теолог, астролог, философ, окултист, схоластик, жрец, религиозен водач, еретик-отцепник… Много ми допада концепцията му за психологията като млада наука, разклонила се с увеличаващото се разклоняване на науките и знанието като цяло. Самото човешко съзнание се “усложнява” спрямо праистория, античност и средновековие. Съдържания, които до момента са вряли в общия казан на религията, митологията, приказките, легендите, старите символики, суеверията, разнообразните духовни практики, най-сетне са достигнали такъв етап на разпознаваемост, отличимост и значимост, че вече се нуждаят от свой собствен апарат за анализ. Термините в случая не са основното - те са просто осъвременен код за древни стихии.

Юнг надниква в бездънния кладенец на личността, където съзнанието е, да речем, само капака му. Колкото по-навътре в пластовете се спуска, толкова повече универсалност и древност открива. За тази древност Юнг твърди, че се унаследява и е обща. Щом с гените наследяваме не само куп индивидуални физически специфики, но и общи за всички хора инстинкти - защо това да не се отнася и за психичните специфики и съдържания? Защо те също да нямат свои общи, неосъзнати проявления, независещи изцяло от средата и личните преживявания и опит? За по-лесно ги нарича архетипове.

Юнг е същински митолог на личността. Всяка личност е своята собствена митология. Митологиите споделят някои общи образи, поведения, символи, архетипове, но една рецепта, валидна за всеки, просто не съществува. За сметка на това източните духовни учения на индуизма и тибетския будизъм, и откъси от някои западни течения като алхимия и различни окултни или символни течения, неочаквано дават ключове към дълбините на бездънния кладенец на личността, който се крие у всеки човек. Пътуването може да е доста страшничко, както ни доказват и древните митове, които според Юнг са предимно персонифицирани проекции на психични съдържания и вътрешни стихии върху заобикалящите ни външни природни сили.

Самостоятелни, “чисти” науки - очертано между редовете на Юнг - не съществуват. За да опознаеш мъничка частица от нещо, трябва да прехвърлиш много планини. За да се върнеш отново при самия себе си.

———
Книгата не е цялостен труд, а сборник от статии/ доклади. Поради което има известна повторяемост помежду им, но се допълват изключително сполучливо. Като че ли е добър вариант “Юнг за начинаещи”. За себе си извлякох доста интересни моменти като:

✔️ Поетапното усложняване и разклоняване на човешкото съзнание във времето - от митологичното и неосъзнатото към рационалното и идентифицираното.
✔️ Митовете като сбор от персонифицирани психични стихии.
✔️ “Цялостната личност” не е просто съзнание, а и необятните дълбинни пластове на несъзнаваното. Само балансът и мирното съвместно съществуване на двете осигурява пълноценност. Сънищата често са проводникът между двете.
✔️ Мандалите като древна и все така изумително удачна техника за себепознание и себенасочвсне, за картографиране на подсъзнанието - и в крайна сметка на концентрация и на себепознание.



За специалистите със сигурност ще са много повече.

———
Юнг е достъпен и диалогичен. Задълбочен, без да се взема насериозно като абсолютен познавач - той сам казва, че разговорът едва сега започва…

———
▶️ Цитати:

🌀“Който отива към себе си, рискува да се конфронтира със себе си. […]
Тази конфронтация е първият тест за смелост по пътя към себе си, тест, способен да изплаши повечето хора, защото срещата със себе си е едно от най-неприятните неща, което може да бъде избягвано дотогава, докато можем да проецираме навън всичко отрицателно.”

🌀“…съзнанието твърде лесно се поддава на несъзнавани влияния, а те често са доста по-истински и по-умни отколкото осъзнатото мислене.”

🌀“Предразсъдък е да се допуска, че нещо, за което никога не сме мислили, не се среща в психиката.”

🌀“…всички митични същества съответстват на вътрешни преживявания и първоначално са произлезли от такива…”

🌀“Наивният наблюдател навярно ще предположи, че щом тъмните аспекти изчезват, наистина вече ги няма. Опитът обаче показва, че не е така. Онова, което действително става, е че съзнанието успява да се освободи от очарованието на злото и вече не е принудено да живее с него насила, обаче тъмното и злото не се е изпарило, а вследствие на загубата на енергия се е оттеглило в несъзнаваното, където си стои несъзнавано, докато в съзнанието всичко е както трябва. Когато обаче съзнанието е разтърсено от критични и изпълнени с несигурност ситуации, тогава се разбира, че сянката изобщо не се е разтворила в нищото, а само изчаква удобен случай, за да се прояви най-малкото като проекция върху съседа.”

🌀“Образът въздейства, защото той тайно има дял в психиката на зрителя и дори се явява нейно отражение, което обаче не бива разпознато като такова.”

🌀“Понеже индивидуалната сянка никъде не липсва като компонент на личността, то от нея отново и отново бива създаван колективният образ, впрочем не винаги като митологична фигура, а в по-ново време, вследствие на прогресиращото изтласкване и пренебрегване на първоначалната митологема, като проекции върху други обществени групи и народи.”

🌀“Пагубният възглед , че всичко в човешката душа идвало отвън, т.к. тя се раждала като tabula rasa, поддържа погрешното вярване, че при външно нормални обстоятелства отделният човек е наред.”

🌀“Не може ли човекът как-сетне да разбере, че всички външни промени и подобрения не докосват вътрешната му природа и че все пак всичко зависи от това, дали той, който борави с науката и техниката, е вменяем или не?”

🌀“…психологията транформира архаичния език на мита в една съвременна, все още неразпозната като такава митология, която е елемент на мита “наука”.”

🌀“Оправянето на едно всеобщо зло започва от всеки един и само тогава, когато той самият поеме отговорността, а не я прехвърля върху другите.”

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those sufficiently intrigued by Jung's ideas to go deeper, this is an excellent place to start. It is the most thorough extant exposition on the collective unconscious and the archetypes that arise therefrom.

Whereas Freud and some of his predecessors believed in a personal unconscious that consisted primarily of the repressed thoughts and feelings of the individual, Jung carried the concept further, arguing that the personal unconscious is merely a thin film overlaying a much deeper reservoir of unconscious images; that being the collective unconscious. Unlike the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious consists of the stored psychic impulses that the human race as a whole has developed over the course of its long evolutionary history. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are inlaid in the psyche of every human being, and the psychological development of every human individual is consequently shaped by their influence.

Needless to say, the implications of this idea, when adequately borne out, are enormous. It firstly dispenses with the enlightenment-era notion of the human mind as a tabula rasa with a form and content that is completely malleable. It suggests that our minds - and consequently our lives - are not entirely ours to shape, but have been to a large extent shaped for us by many generations of human experience, to which our own experience must be reconciled in order for it to be understood. All of our individual thoughts, feelings, insights, and enterprises are to be measured against the unconscious voice of all humanity. We must measure ourselves against our ancestors, rather than the other way around, as enlightened men like Voltaire would have had it.

It even serves as a basis for the legitimacy of revealed truth, as opposed to empirically-discovered truth - although this is a seedy issue, since Jung insists that the existence of a collective unconscious is empirically proveable and that his work is every bit as "scientific" as that of anyone working in the natural sciences. The archetypal images that bubble up from the collective unconscious to present themselves to us must be said to come from outside of ourselves, to a certain extent. The images of the unconscious are like gods or spirits to us; they tell us things we did not consciously think of ourselves and offer to guide our way on life's path. It is psychologically dangerous to either shun these spiritual voices or conversely to identify excessively with them over one's own ego-consciousness. Rather, we have to let the voice of humanity present itself to us and dialogue with it, in order to develop as holistic human beings.

[Alex Kartelias · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first learned about Carl Jung in a psychology class in high school and I was amazed. After spending 4 years studying philosophy and religion, I finally sat down and began reading his work and I'm glad I waited: Jung makes a ton of references to many philosophical, religious/mythological, alchemical and literary figures that if you were not familiar with them before hand, you won't get much from his work.

Having said that, I do think he is a impressive psychologist whose ideas on anima/animus, synchronicity and the collective unconscious are illuminating for many subjects- and had an impact on my personal philosophy. However, he is limited: as a psychologist and not a philosopher- as he frequently says- he gives way too many technical explanations and too many side-tracks. Some times the side-tracks are rewarding, but other times they can be distracting. I expected a much more grandiose type of writing style with something along the lines of Plato or Hegel since his ideas are extremely deep. But since he is an scientific- empiricist, he barely gives any abstract explanations- amidst a couple.

The main thing I notice from his writing is that he seems to struggle between two Persona's: the scientist and the mystic. Because he makes almost bipolar/drastic switches between spiritual and scientific moods, it affects the writing as well as the organization of his work. Jung started out very conservative in his early work and even though he started breaking out of it when he published Symbols of Transformation, he still had this tension between the two.

I suppose that his struggle is the Zeitgeist of our times. The media as well as many intellectuals keep on spreading the delusion that one can't live in both places simultaneously. And as long as we remain ignorant of both fields as well of history, the longer this struggle will continue. If Carl Jung was living during the Renaissance, his work would have suffered less but today, we live in the dark ages of religious fundamentalism and scientism. For those who see a glimpse of how much life will change if religious/artistic and scientific thought were brought back into Original marriage- to use Aldous Huxley's words-his work will be a map to that dream.

[hayatem · Rating 4 out of 5]

تقع مادة الكتاب ضمن دوائر الاختصاص.

يناقش فيها يونغ وبشكل موسع مفهومه عن اللاوعي الجمعي وكيفية تشكله"يعتبر اللاوعي الجمعي مكونًا فريدًا حيث اعتقد يونغ أن هذا الجزء من النفس كان بمثابة شكل من أشكال الميراث النفسي. احتوت على كل المعارف والخبرات التي يشترك فيها البشر كنوع. " + مفهوم النماذج البدئية الكامنة في اللاوعي الجمعي. ( ما هي، وكيف تؤثر على حياتنا، وعلاقتها بالرموز وأفكار يونغ حول العلاقة بين التجارب الدينية والأنماط البدائية.) "اقترح يونج أن العقل البشري، أو النفس، ليست نتاج تجربة شخصية بشكل حصري، بل تحتوي على عناصر ما قبل الشخصية، أو الشخصية، وعناصر مشتركة بين الجميع. هذه العناصر التي يطلق عليها الأنماط البدائية، واقترح أن تأثيرها على الفكر والسلوك البشري هو الذي يؤدي إلى أوجه التشابه بين الأساطير والأديان المختلفة."

اعتقد يونغ أن الدين كان تعبيرًا طبيعيًا عن اللاوعي الجماعي بينما اعتقد فرويد أنه كان عصابًا جماعيًا.

وفي هذا السياق يشير مفهوم النموذج البدئي المرتبط بعلاقة لا غنى عنها بفكرة اللاوعي الجمعي، إلى وجود أشكال واضحة في النفس تبدو كأنها حاضرة دوماً وفي كل مكان. تعكس هذه الصور البدائية الأنماط الأساسية أو الموضوعات العالمية المشتركة بيننا جميعًا والموجودة في اللاوعي. هذه الصور الرمزية موجودة خارج المكان والزمان. أمثلة عليها : الظل ، الأنيموس ، الأنيما ، العجوز الحكيم ، الطفل البريء. يبدو أيضًا أن هناك نماذج أصلية للطبيعة ، مثل النار والمحيط والنهر والجبل. "النماذج البدائية هي نماذج فطرية عالمية لأشخاص أو سلوكيات أو شخصيات تلعب دورًا في التأثير على السلوك البشري. ان هذه النماذج البدائية هي أشكال قديمة من المعرفة الإنسانية الفطرية التي انتقلت من أسلافنا. في علم النفس اليونغي ، تمثل النماذج البدائية أنماطًا وصورًا عالمية تشكل جزءًا من اللاوعي الجمعي. اعتقد يونغ أننا ورثنا هذه النماذج البدائية كثيرًا بالطريقة التي نرث بها أنماط السلوك الغريزية." ، كما يقول كذلك عنها يونغ : إنها تشكل "الكنز في عوالم الأفكار الظليلة" التي تحدث عنها كانط، والتي لدينا عنها أدلة وافرة في أفكار غنية لا تعد ولا تحصى في الأسطورة.

_مفهوم الأنيما-"الأنيما هي النموذج الأصلي للحياة نفسها. ["نماذج اللاوعي الجماعي" ، CW 9i ، par. 66.] - مبدأ الأنيما مبدأ تجريبي صرف غايته الوحيدة أن يعطي اسماً لمجموعة الظواهر النفسية المترابطة أو المتماثلة.
‏ANIMA و ANIMUS. Anima و Animus هما تجسيدان للطبيعة الأنثوية لعقل الرجل والطبيعة الذكورية للمرأة. هذه الازدواجية النفسية هي انعكاس للحقيقة البيولوجية القائلة بأن العدد الأكبر من جينات الذكور (أو الإناث) هو العامل الحاسم في تحديد الجنس. تظهر الأنيما والأنيموس عن نفسها بشكل نموذجي كشخصيات في الأحلام والتخيلات أو في اللاعقلانية لمشاعر الرجل وتفكير المرأة. باعتبارهما منظمين للسلوك ، فإنهما من أكثر النماذج الأصلية تأثيرًا . وتعمل كمصدر أساسي في التواصل مع اللاوعي الجمعي."

كما صاغ في الكتاب عدداً من المفاهيم الأخرى أذكر منها :
مفهوم الخيال النشط: "مفهوم يتضمن مجموعة متنوعة من التقنيات لتفعيل عملياتنا التخيلية في حياة اليقظة من أجل الاستفادة من المعاني اللاواعية لرموزنا. يعمل الخيال النشط عن طريق تشجيع العقل الواعي واللاواعي على التواصل من خلال جعل انتباهنا الواعي يستكشف في العقل اللاواعي. "لا شجرة ، كما يقال ، يمكن أن تنمو إلى الجنة ما لم تصل جذورها إلى الجحيم." - كارل يونغ. يقوم بذلك من خلال تركيز عقولنا الواعية على تعابير عقولنا اللاواعية - أحلامنا."

مفهوم الشخصية اليونغية : "يمكن للمرء أن يقول ، مع القليل من المبالغة ، أن الشخصية هي التي في الواقع ليست الشخص ولكن الشخص نفسه كما يعتقد الآخرون هو كذلك".
، مفهوم الذات /التفردية وأثرها في تشكيل الوعي ، كذا تأثير اللاوعي الجمعي على الذات واستلاباتها. الذات عند يونغ :هي نموذج أصلي يرمز إلى مجمل الشخصية( اللاوعي، والوعي) إنه يمثل السعي من أجل الوحدة والكمال والتكامل ، غالبًا ما كان يونغ يمثل الذات كدائرة أو مربع أو ماندالا.

"الماندالا هو رمز حي. إنه تمثيل التوق للوحدة ويساعدنا في عملية التفرد ". —كارل يونغ

وفي القسم الأخير من الكتاب يستعرض يونغ بالتحليل نماذج مختلفة من الماندالات، ضمت مجموعة منتقاه من اللوحات لثقافات مختلفة، و لأشخاص متعلمين أو معافين (لا يعانون من المرض النفسي)، و لعدد من المرضى ( ممن يعانون من انفصام في الشخصية) ، وضح من خلالها يونغ أثر الأنيما - و النماذج البدئية على اللاوعي الجمعي، و الذات . أهم الملاحظات كانت : تتكرر الأفكار الرئيسية كثيراً فيها لدرجة تظهر أوجه تشابه ملحوظ في الأنماط والرموز في لوحات رسمها مرضى مختلفون جداً، وهو ما أثار يقظة يونغ وأوحى له بفكرة وجود النماذج البدئية المشتركة بين النوع البشري، والتي تعود جذورها عميقاً في اللاوعي الجمعي.

لم يخلو الكتاب من السياق الفلسفي الأدبي وشواهده؛ من شخصيات وقصص تركة بصمات في تاريخ العلم، والأدب والفلسفة، وكذا نزوعه نحو حرث المعتقدات الدينية؛ الاهتمام بمجموعة من الطوائف والتفسيرات الدينية (كالديانة البوذية) ، كما أنه اطلع واهتم في تفسير كبرى الآيات القرآنية، سورة الكهف أنموذجاً ( قصة الخضر على وجه التحديد ) التي درسها في مجال بحثه : ( ما يتعلق بالولادة الجديدة.)

لو نلخص رؤية يونغ عن النماذج البدئية و اللاوعي الجمعي بشكل علمي أكثر ، سنقول كما علمتنا الفيزياء، الإنسان خلق من غبار النجوم؛ بكل ما تحمله العبارة من إشكالية وجدل !

مادة الكتاب معقدة شيئاً ما بالنظر إلى الطريقة التي كون واستقى كارل يونغ فيها أفكاره حول النماذج البدئية. يونغ كما يحلو للبعض وصفه؛ هو أوسع منظّر تاريخي للشخصية. درس العديد من ثقافات العالم في محاولة لفهم الرموز العالمية وطبيعة الشخصية. و تحضر بشكل لافت السمة الفلسفية للغنوصية التي تنعكس ظلالها وبشكل مؤثر في قراءته وتفسيره وتحليله للعمل، اذ يلجأ إلى القصص الأسطورية (تشكل الأسطورة معنى هائل في علم النفس اليونغي.)، لابد من التنبيه إلى فرادة هذا العمل الذي ألهم بقدر ما أثار الكثير من النقد ل يونغ.

بعض مما جاء في نقد النماذج البدئية ل يونغ:
"لم تكن أفكار يونغ شائعة مثل أفكار فرويد ولم يتم النظر إلى نماذجه الأولية بشكل إيجابي في علم النفس الحديث. قد يكون هذا بسبب أن عمله كان يميل إلى الانحراف إلى الصوفي والعلم الزائف ، وبالتالي غالبًا ما يتم دراسته على أنه قطعة أثرية تاريخية وفي مجالات النقد الأدبي وتطبيقات الثقافة الشعبية للأساطير أكثر من كونه مساهمة رئيسية في علم العقل والسلوك .
تشير انتقادات أخرى لأنماط يونغ البدائية إلى أنها مفرطة في التنميط ، واختزالية ، ومتحيزة ثقاف��ًا."

مع ذلك مثير للاهتمام. كتاب للتاريخ!

[Hadis · Rating 4 out of 5]

ریویو نوشتن برای این کتاب کار من نیست. کتاب رو کامل تموم نکردم و تا صفحه ۲۲۰ تونستم بخونمش. بعدا در کنار موازي‌خوانی‌هام میرم سراغش. فعلا به این جمله از کتاب، برای ریویو اکتفا می‌کنم:
"کهن الگوها اجزای نابودنشدنی ضمیر ناخودآگاه ما هستند، اما شکل‌شان دائما تغییر می‌کند."

[Théo d'Or]

"I have always been impressed that there are a surprisingly large number of individuals who never use their minds, if they can avoid this, and just as many who use their minds, but in an astonishingly foolish way.
I was also surprised to find that many intelligent people live as if they have never learned to use their sense organs, they don't see things that are in front of their eyes, they don't hear the words that ring in their ears. Some seem to live in the strangest state of consciousness, as if that state they reached today is a final one, with no possibility of change, or as if the world and the psyche were static, and would remained so forever. They seem completely devoid of imagination and rely solely on sensory perceptions.
Chance and possibility do not exist in their world, and in " today " there is not really a " tomorrow ".
The future is just a repetition of the past ".

Jung is not a complicated thinker, but definitely not a simple one .
A central idea in Jung's thinking is the distinction between understanding and knowing.
" I can only approach the task of understanding, with a free and open mind, while knowing man presupposes all kinds of knowledge about mankind in general ".
I can't agree with that, why would understanding a man exclude knowing a man ? I think Jung's views made more sense in the '60s, with the whole that " counterculture " movement, however, there is a definite value, indisputably, in his theory.
It reminds me of how some evolutionary biologists see everything through their lens, ignoring the rest. Or as some historians see everything in " marxist" or " hegelian " terms, usw.
For those who know/ understand Jung, my opinion matters less. For those who don't know him, I highly recommend. It's not only a book of a famous psychologist, but also one of a great interpreter in a wide range of subjects, anyway, much more accessible than Freud.

[Ugnė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beveik mėnesį, su pertraukom ir vengimu skaityti, kol šilta ir prie ežero norisi.

Ne atostogų knyga, ir pats Jungas rašo ilgais, kartais painiais sakiniais. Ir dar tas XX a pradžios - vidurio išsilavinimas, su visom mitologijos, gamtos mokslų ir medicinos žiniom. Ir žavu, ir sudėtinga tuo pačiu, tačiau skaitydama visada džiaugiuosi.

[Warren Fournier · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are so many mixed feelings that I have about recommending this book or any of Jung's work to a general audience, but overall I cannot deny the power of his vision. The concepts discussed in this collection of work on the "Collective Unconscious" has impacted far more than just psychiatrists and therapists practicing Jungian techniques to restore harmony to the self. His work also has influenced how artists create and how audiences appreciate art. I myself find that I tend to analyze works of literature through the represented archetypes. But beyond that, Jung's theories also help us understand more about ourselves and our place in the infinite. Jung was certainly as much of a mystic as a strict psychiatrist. And perhaps it is that melding of thought that bothers me, but it is also to that which makes his theories so revolutionary.

My biggest issue with Jung is that, while he refers to his work as science, his scientific method is suspect. He believes we can tap into inherited knowledge gathered since the origin of the species or even before, a collective unconscious containing the experiences of our ancestors. Due to this storehouse being unconscious, the only way to consciously represent this information is through universal symbols called archetypes. His evidence for his theories regarding archetypes and the collective unconscious lies primarily in that certain symbols and themes appear in dreams, myth, religious iconography, and art throughout the years from very distant cultures separated by space and time. From Easter bunnies to Christmas trees, modern society celebrate symbols without really being aware of their meaning--remnants of memories of our ancestors and from perhaps our prehistoric ancestors, whose largely instinctive minds took in experience in the form of giants, monsters, and forces far beyond their understanding. The appearance of these phenomena, he says, are repeatable and observable in contemporary case studies, and he cites examples from his own caseload. He would have his clients visualize their dreams by drawing them in illustrations, or perform exercises where they would create and paint their own mandalas. Now Jung himself was very learned and well read, in fact incredibly so. Therefore, he was easily able to spot similarities to, and relationships with, his patient's symbols and those of ancient cultural beliefs.

But that's just it. Jung's passion was the study of Eastern religions and comparitive religious studies. He had forgotten more about these topics than any of us have ever learned. He loved it, bathed in it. I bet if you ever visited Jung's office you would hallucinate from all the incense fumes. Therefore, he was always at risk of statistical Type I errors because of his bias. Just like the recovering alcoholic who sees addictive behavior in anyone sitting at a cafe sipping a cosmopolitan, Jung saw symbolic equivalents and comparisons everywhere. And because of his extensive knowledge and experience with religious and mystical studies, he was more likely than anyone to find the correlation. "So you had a vision that the sun had a penis? Ahh, that reminds me of the Mithraic liturgy!"

The other issue I have with this book in particular actually has less to do with Jung's education and the bias inherited from that education, but rather from the education of his CLIENTS! Regarding the artwork that he would have his patients create, Jung claimed his patients could not have known anything about of these esoteric symbols of mythology and alchemy that would occasionally appear in their homework assignments. But thanks to the Princeton Press, full color illustrations of sample mandalas and dreamscapes created by Jung's patients are included with the articles, and you can clearly see that these clients were in no way uneducated. In fact, they clearly had deep knowledge, though not mastery, of such concepts as color theory and the symbolic language and techniques of major artistic movements like German expressionism. I think Jung downplayed or underestimated the intelligence and learning of his own subjects. This would be like Freud telling one of his patients to draw a penis, not accounting for the fact that the patient was a fairly accomplished amateur artist with a working knowledge of human anatomy. If Freud published an article stating that the care and accuracy put into the drawing showed the patient's subconscious genital preoccupation, you can easily see the problem. On examining these drawings and paintings by Jung's clients, it also becomes apparent that we do not know the true level of instruction or influence Jung may have bestowed on his clients when giving these assignments.

Be that as it may, and whether or not Jung could prove his theories, his genius will absolutely blow your mind. I particularly enjoyed his thoughts on the "trickster figure," an archetype that can be a healer and a force of chaos. As a physician who grew up riding in the Krewe of Thoth every Mardi Gras season, this archetype is near and dear to my heart. Not only did my otherwise traditional and professional self dip into the unconscious realm of the Trickster during Carnival, an experience which I greatly enjoyed as transformative and rejuvenating, but my very profession is an embodiment of the archetype. There is some great discussion on the internet about the two-sided "Trickster" nature to the practice of medicine. There were many other highlights that peaked my interest, so that, even though Jung's writing style is marred by constant circumstantial and tangential lapses in logic, I found it difficult to put the book down.

I can't think of a better way for those wanting to understand Jungian thought than to dive straight into the source. This book may not be for everyone, but it is an incredibly important work and I do think we should all take a peek into the Collective Unconscious.

[Tiago F · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my first proper read of Jung. I've read Modern Man in Search of a Soul, but it felt like a very superficial introduction. This book, on the other hand, is a deep dive into Jung's thought.

I view myself much in Jung - particularly the combination of extreme introversion and openness. I think it's this personality, in a large part, that leads to this particular path of the never-ending journey into one's consciousness, which evitably leads to the understanding of the psyche in general.

However, besides the character of Jung and the path he led, the most striking thing about him is how unbelievably knowledgable and smart he is. He read Latin and Greek and was familiar with a large literature of old esoteric books that for most modern people, have no value whatsoever, due to their poor scientific basis. Jung was perhaps not the first but the very likely the best at conceptualizing the meaning behind fields like astrology and alchemy. His knowledge of comparative mythology, comparative religion and classic literature was also immense. Truly an intellectual giant that is almost non-existent nowadays. It feels like he was teleported from the Renaissance, continuing the lost tradition of polymathy.

Jung's thought is very complicated, but it can be summarized relatively easily if painted with a wide brush. In essence, he realized that certain patterns appear both through cultures and spontaneously by individuals (in large part by his clinical practice). Then compared those patterns and hypothesized their meaning. They're always symbolic, and for the most part, he categorized them in psychoanalytic fashion - a fight between the conscious and the unconscious, with endless variations, ramifications and symbolism.

The collective unconscious is the a priori structure of the psyche, its deep and hidden layers, resulting from the common experience of all human beings for thousands of years. This layer is symbolic, coming from a time where consciousness was entangled with fantasy, long before language, and perhaps long self-consciousness. As Jung said, 'man was thinking before he realized he was thinking. '

The archetypes are simply the architecture of the collective unconscious. In this book, he focuses on the anima, the mother, the shadow, rebirth, spirit and trickster archetype. He also touches heavily on the process of individuation - the integration of the unconscious into consciousness, and relates it to the symbolism of mandalas.

Reading Jung is in some sense a very bizarre experience. There are 3 categories of reading that repeat through his writing: Pure awe of his genius and his insight; complete confusing not knowing what the hell he's talking about; and perplexion at what seems apophenic delusions. Luckily, the first is well worth the other two.

Confusion is likely because Jung was never writing for the general audience, but rather to his professional contemporaries, and many of the topics are complex and interconnected, requiring extending background knowledge.

Regarding what seems pure delusions and confirmation-bias, it might very well be the fact that they're indeed the case, and sometimes he simply got lost in his own theorizing. Jung, while incredibly smart and well-read, is nevertheless human and prone to mistakes like everyone else. However, I try to always remain open-minded. Many things that I used to put into this category while I started to learn about Jung later turned out to be quite reasonable, which is humbling. While some of Jung's claims seem hard to accept, they're not made mindlessly. Many are based on decades of experience before he was convinced of them. He was always deeply aware that he might make incorrect inferences, make-up false patterns, and unconsciously suggest his patients.

It seems ridiculous, but Jung calls himself an empiricist countless times. While obviously he's not conducting scientific experiments, he's using the underlying principles of the scientific inquiry to the best of his ability, considering the subject he's dealing with. While there are many claims that seem bizarre, I never discard them right off the bat.

It's definitely a dense book, it's filled with things that one cannot easily grasp, and others that seem plain silliness. However, it equally has ineffable value into the human condition and the deep structure of thought. If you've stumbled upon Jung's concepts and ideas before and they clicked with you, this book will definitely be valuable, and you will be glad to have read it.

[Sorana · Rating 5 out of 5]

- simbolurile "il fac pe om sa simta adierea divinitatii, si in acelasi timp il apara impotriva trairii nemijlocite a acesteia"
- "Jahve este un Dumnezeu ale carui opozitii nu au fost inca separate"
- "Intotdeauna formele inconstientului au fost exprimate prin imagini protectoare si tamaduitoare si astfel alungate in spatiul cosmic, extrasufletesc."
- "Crestinismul s-a mentinut pentru ca a corespuns modelului arhetipal existent."
- apa ca simbol al inconstientului
- coborarea in adancuri precede urcarea
- "Toate eforturile umanitatii s-au indreptat in directia consolidarii constiintei."- rituri, reprezentari colective, dogme, alungarea spiritelor, purificare: aparare de inconstient
- "Conditiile istorice exterioare constituie intr-un fel doar prilejul pentru pericolele cu adevarat grave, adica pentru conceptiile social-politice eronate ce nu pot fi explicate ca urmari necesare ale conditiilor exterioare, ci ca decizii ale inconstientului."
- "De aceea avem astazi o psihologie si de aceea vorbim despre inconstient. Toate acestea ar fi cu totul de prisos intr-o epoca si intr-o cultura care au simboluri. Pentru oamenii unei asemenea culturi trairea sau cercetarea inconstientului ar fi o stradanie inutila, caci inconstientul lor nu este altceva decat domnia linistita, netulburata a naturii."
- "Daca n-ar fi existat mobilitatea si sclipirile sufletului, omul ar fi stagnat din cauza pasiunii sale celei mai mare- inertia"- La Rochefoucauld
- anima ca arhetipul vietii
- "Opozitia desert-paradis semnifica opozitia insingurare-individuatie sau evolutia spre sine"
- "In toate cazurile de disociere este necesara integrarea inconstientului in constiinta": procesul de individuatie. Daca nu: psihoze (continuturile inconstiente se elibereaza de controlul constient) sau nevroze (continuturile raman ascunse in plan secund, dar influenteaza constientul)
- in nevroze: este retrait acel arhetip care corespunde situatiei, deci intra in actiune fortele instinctuale ascunse in arhetip
- simbol vs arhetip; interpretarea depinde de circumstantele personale
- vezi fantasma unui paranoic (asociatia soare-vant), regasita intr-un text vechi grecesc (p. 63)
- "Cineva poate fi sincer convins ca este liber de ideile religioase, dar nimeni nu se poate indeparta atat de mult de umanitate incat sa nu aiba o dominanta."
- "Arhetipul reprezentarii religioase are, ca orice instinct, energia sa specifica pe care n-o pierde, chiar daca o ignora constiinta."
- "Ipoteza ca in inconstient exista un continut cu o puternica incarcatura emotionala, care intr-un anumit moment este proiectat, devine inevitabila. Continutul consta in motivul diadei, care ne spune ca intotdeauna masculinul si femininul apar impreuna." -in spatele diadei, perechea parintilor; proiectia se realizeaza atunci cand un continut este inconstient; aici, probabil imaginea supravalorizata (mitica?) a parintilor, formata in copilaria timpurie
- teama de a nu pierde legatura cu premisele arhetipale ale constiintei: dublarea parintilor biologici cu nasii, "dubla nastere"= motivul mitic conform caruia eroul are atat parinti divini, cat si umani
- pierderea animei (p. 84): in a doua parte a vietii, dogmatism, pierderea flexibilitatii si vivacitatii
- arhetip- Ideea lui Platon
- mostenirea nu a continuturilor arhetipale (care nu sunt prea definite), ci a formelor
ARHETIPUL MAMEI
- nevrozele, nu neaparat provenind din influente traumatice, ci din dezvoltarea proprie a fanteziei infantile? (proiectia unor imagini arhetipale exagerate asupra mamei)
- complex matern la fiica- atrofierea/hipertrofia instinctului matern sau amplificarea erosului-> relatie inconstienta incestuoasa cu tatal x.x sau identitatea cu mama- complex de inferioritate si dependenta, sau apararea impotriva mamei
- la barbati: interpretarea imaginii mamei prin prisma animei, deci complexul matern nu e chiar pur
- reforma crestina a conceptului de Dumnezeu: de la Iahve dubios moral, la un Dumnezeu exclusiv bun; separarea contrariilor, raul reprezentat de diavol, apoi gasit exclusiv in om
- "Idealizarea este un apotropeism secret. Se idealizeaza acolo unde trebuie exilata o teama."
- copacul, simbolul unirii contrariilor: sus-jos
RENASTEREA
- "pierderea sufletului"/ slabire a tensiunii constiintei, diminuarea energiei: ingusteaza orizontul spiritual printr-un egocentrism in expansiune-> dezvoltarea unei personalitati negative, falsificare fata de cea originala
- fenomenul de posesiune: de catre un anumit continut al personalitatii. ex. persona (modul in care relationam cu lumea), animus, anima
- identificarea cu stramosii
- identificarea cu un grup
- proceduri magice de reinnoire, in caz de boala: ex. esti trecut printr-o gaura in perete la capul patului, ti se da alt nume, baie baptismala, moarte figurata
- arhetipurile apar in mituri si basme, vise, fantasme psihotice
- starea psihica primitiva: constiinta mai putin dezvoltata. Primitivul nu poate afirma ca el gandeste, ci ca “se gandeste in el”; teama de influente magice, datorita puterii inconstientului
- “Starea spirituala primitiva nu inventeaza mituri, ci le traieste”
- “Daca arhetipurile nu pot fi cumva negate sau facute inofensive, fiecare treapta culturala a diferentierii constiintei este confruntata cu sarcina de a gasi o noua interpretare, corespunzatoare treptei, pentru a lega viata trecuta, inca existenta in noi, cu viata prezenta”
- motivul infans: aspectul preconstient al copilariei sufletului colectiv
- “Constiinta diferentiata este mereu amenintata de dezradacinare, de aceea are nevoie de starea de copilarie inca prezenta”
- tendinta progresista: indeplinirea multor dorinte, cu pretul vinovatiei
- “Inapoierea este apropiata de naturalete, dar si amenintata constant de o trezire dureroasa.”
- amenintarea reprezentata de balauri, serpi: pericolul ca dobandirea constiintei va fi inghitita din nou de inconstient
- “Din ciocnirea contrariilor(intr-un conflict interior), psihicul inconstient realizeaza mereu un tert de natura irationala, care este neasteptat si de neconceput pentru constiinta.”- unirea contrariilor
- “Identitatea nu face posibila constiinta, numai separarea, desprinderea si pasionata stare de a-fi-in-opozitie pot realiza constiinta si cunoasterea. Introspectia indiana a cunoscut de timpuriu aceasta stare de lucruri si a identificat subiectul cunoasterii cu subiectul existentei. Conform atitudinii predominant introvertite a gandirii indiene, obiectul a pierdut atributul realitatii absolute si a devenit adeseori simpla aparenta. Atitudinea spirituala greco-occidentala nu s-a putut elibera de convingerea existentei absolute a lumii. Aceasta s-a intamplat cu pretul semnificatiei cosmice a lumii.”
- majoritatea zeilor cosmogonici au natura bisexuala – unirea contrariilor
- deci. la barbat inconstientul e feminin (anima): de obicei proiectat asupra unei femei, iar la femeie, e masculin (animus), proiectat asupra unui barbat
-“Cand cei doi vor fi unul, si ceea ce e afara ca ceea ce e inauntru, si masculinul cu femininul, nici masculin, nici feminin” (intr-o evanghelie gnostica)
- arhetipuri ca elemente de neclintit ale inconstientului, dar mereu in forme diferite, pt ca sunt potentiale, nu continuturi
- “Delirului de grandoare constient ii corespunde o inferioritate inconstienta, compensatoare, iar inferioritatii constiente un delir de grandoare inconstient.”
- “personalitatea supraordonata”: sinele complet
- trairea legaturii dintre generatii contribuie la sentimentul eliberarii din timp
- animus apare deseori ca pictor, are un aparat de proiectie sau posesor al unei galerii de tablouri- functie mediatoare intre constient si inconstient: inconstientul contine imagini care sunt manifestate de animus ca imagini
- in alchimie: sufletul= Mercurius
- tantrismul sustine ca: materia nu e decat determinatia gandului divin
- suflet vs spirit
- pentru omul primitiv, spiritul se afla in exteriorul sau; apoi, coborarea sa in sfera constiintei umane
- arhetipul spiritului: batranul
- arhetipurile, o parte pozitiva, dar si una negativa. relativizarea contrariilor, ambiguitate morala
- animalul este intr-un fel superior omului, pentru ca nu s-a ratacit inca in constienta sa. Legenda despre pacatul originar emanciparea eului constient este un fapt luciferic
- triada vs cuaternitate; cuaternitatea este un simbol al totalitatii. Triada e un simbol al opozitiei; deci un potential de descarcare
- trei functii psihice, constiente; a patra, inconstienta
-“Basmul ca un produs spontan, naiv si nereflectat al sufletului nu poate exprima decat ceea ce este sufletul.”
- “umbra”, alcatuita din triada inferioara a functiilor psihice? must read “tipuri psihologice”
- rolul incestului in alchimie si mitologie; semnifica unirea contrariilor
- p. 256-257, Jung fiind revoltat impotriva inconstientei modernitatii si a rationalismului :(
- “Chiar si in patologie, punctul de vedere strict cauzal nu s-a dovedit suficient, caci exista nu putine fenomene patologice care isi dezvaluie sensul abia la intrebarea in ce scop”
- figura trickster-ului- lipsa de ratiune, caracter pueril : umbra
- “Cand se realizeaza o eliberare a constiintei de fascinatia raului si aceasta nu mai este constransa sa convietuiasca cu el, de fapt raul si intunericul nu s-au evaporate ca un fum, ci s-au retras in inconstient. Daca constiinta este zguduita de situatii critice si indoielnice, atunci se vede ca umbra nu s-a dizolvat in neant, ci a asteptat ocazia potrivita pentru a aparea cel putin ca proiectie asupra vecinului.”
-“Din punct de vedere psihologic se poate afirma ca istoria culturii umane reprezinta incercarile omului de a uita transformarea sa din animal in om.” – Paul Radin
- “Bolnavul este inghitit de un flux de idei care atat lui, cat si omului normal, ii sunt straine. De aceea il numim « nebun » : nu ii putem intelege ideile. Noi intelegem ceva numai atunci cand avem premisele necesare pentru aceasta. Dar in acest caz premisele sunt la fel de straine constiintei noastre cum ii erau si spiritului pacientului. Daca nu ar fi asa, el nu s-ar fi imbolnavit niciodata psihic.”
- “Autonomia inconstientului incepe acolo unde iau nastere emotiile. Emotiile sunt reactii instinctive, involuntare, care tulbura ordinea rationala a constiintei prin izbucniri elementare. Cu cat o emotie este mai puternica, cu atat de apropie mai mult de patologic, adica de acea stare in care constiinta eului este data la o parte de continuturi autonome si adeseori inconstiente.”
- inconstientul: lume preconstienta ancestrala, dar si anticipeaza un viitor potential: destin
-intuitia ca “perceptie via inconstient”
- Umbra coincide cu inconstientul personal. AHA!
- “La fel cum corpul reprezinta un fel de muzeu al istoriei sale filogenetice, asa face si psihicul.”
- oul: atat simbol cosmogonic, oul orfic al inceputului lumii, cat si oul filosofic, vasul din care la sfarsitul lui “opus alchymicum” iese Anthropos-ul, omul spiritual si complet
- sufletul “nu numai ca este asemanator sferei lunii, ci este prevazut cu ochi pe toate partile” (von Heisterbach, calugar)
- fulgerul ca “nasterea luminii”, putere transformatoare
- in alchimie, procesul de indivduatie reprezentat ca “opus”: analogie a creatiei lumii
- dragonul ca simbol al anului
- Mercurius crudus/vulgi (argint viu obisnuit) si Mercurius philosophorum (spiritul Mercurius)
- rosul semnifica afectivitatea, albastrul procesul spiritual
- “Pericolul caracteristic pentru femeie din partea inconstientului vine de sus, din sfera “spirituala”, care este personificata prin animus, iar la barbat vine din domeniul htonic al “femeii lume”, adica de la anima proiectata asupra lumii.”
- in imagistica, orientarea catre stanga indica in general o miscare spre inconstient, iar cea catre dreapta, o miscare catre constiinta
- apa “ca o substantialitate a spiritului”
- “Dumnezeu este o sfera nesfarsita a carui centru este peste tot, iar circumferinta nicaieri”- Alain de Lille? Pascal? Idk
- Cei fara Dumnezeu merg in cerc (Biblie); se afla mereu la periferie, fara sa ajunga vreodata in centru
- sarea, simbolul intelepciunii, dar si a personalitatii deosebite, alese
- formarea cojilor in mandale: caracter de multitudine si de moarte, simbolizeaza materia. dar si rol protector
- carbunculus= lapis
- ideea de matrix la Jacob Bohme, conditie sine qua non a tuturor diferentierilor, deci realizarilor, fara de care spiritul ramane suspendat, si nu intra niciodata in realitate
- pasarea: simbol spiritual feminin
- ochiul ca model al mandalei
- ca semn zodiacal, racul simbolizeaza renasterea. Este asociat cu luna
- “Nimic nu este in intregime adevarat, si nici aceasta nu este in intregime adevarat.”
- contrariile pot fi tinute in echilibru doar daca centrul ramane ferm
- INTERPRETAREA unui proces de trasformare e cea care poate duce la patologie, nu procesul in sine!
- sarpele personifica inconstientul; pestele reprezinta un continut al acestuia
- trandafirul, echivalentul occidental al lotusului
- 5 e numarul omului natural, teluric (vezi steaua cu cinci colturi); 4, numar spiritual
- in alchimie, paunul e sinonim cu phoenix-ul
- “Rationalismul nu ascunde in niciun caz o constiinta superioara, ci doar una unilaterala”
- Plutarh zice: sufletul e numai partial in corp, iar in parte e in afara, pluteste deasupra omului ca o stea si reprezinta geniul sau

[Regina Watts · Rating 5 out of 5]

It would not be an exaggeration to call this one of the top 3 most important books I have ever read.

[Barbara K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took me considerable time to get through, in spite of the fact that I'd read parts of it before, elsewhere. I read it off and on as I had the attention to give it, and since my reading time is usually at the end of the day, I didn't always have the brain power remaining to give it its proper due, so I read easier things instead.

The final sections, on mandalas, captured my attention and sped me, relatively speaking, through the last hundred pages or so.

I'm sure I'll be processing the contents of this book internally for a long time. As usual I penciled some things, and I plan to go back through what I penciled and perhaps add to this review later. I want to ensure that I'm not dicing and slicing ideas by quoting or paraphrasing out of context. So many of the ideas presented require extensive explanation, they don't lend well to pithy little quotes or statements.

If what I've said above makes you think, "Oh, I don't want to read that. It's too difficult a book," let me add that I will read this book again. In fact, just in glancing through portions I penciled around in the introductory pages I realize how much I'll get from a second reading.

This book as a whole brings home to the reader the fact that the unconscious isn't just something that might be good to be aware of, but that we ignore it to our detriment.

[Judita Eicher-Lorka]

O jergutėliau, prieš pradėdama skaityti, nežinojau, kad tiek daug pyksiuosi su autoriumi. Galvojau, bus panašu, kaip per Jordan B. Peterson asmenybės paskaitas ir bus labai įdomu. Na taip, buvo tikrai įdomu, tačiau nežinojau, kiek stipriai iškeliu mokslinį aiškinimą, racionalumą bei skeptiškumą. O vargeli, kaip man sunku buvo su Jungu. Vieną vakarą su vyru vos nesusipykome, apie jį kalbėdami, nes vyras pabuvo velnio advokatu ir gynė C. G. Jungo poziciją. O aš niekaip negalėjau atleisti, kad autorius užsiminęs, jog archetipai, ar polinkis suformuoti konkrečius archetipus yra įgimtas, nuo tos minties nusigręžia ir net nepamėgina įrodyti, jog tai įgimta. Jis, žinoma, mėgina, bet aš ne iš mokslinės pusės. O dar Youtubėj susiradau kažkokį video, kur taip nevykusiai bandoma pritempti kai kuriuos naujausius tyrimus, kad va, čia jau beveik patvirtina Jungo teorijas. Nieko bendro ten net nebuvo.

Kaip bebūtų, į antrą knygos pusę apsiraminau. Netgi kilo noras geriau Jungą suprasti, arba bent jau atkreipti dėmesį, kad gal reikėtų pasirūpint ir ta kita, mažiau racionalia savo dalimi ir išmėginti tokius dalykus kaip šokio ir dailės terapija.

- Apie ką

Jungas rašė, kad kolektyvinė pasąmonė yra „ne individualios, o bendros prigimties, taigi apima, kitaip nei asmeninė psichika, tokius turinius ir elgsenas, kurie cum grano salis (su žiupsniu druskos, t. y., nepriimti kaip už gryną pinigą, su šlakeliu abejonės) visur ir visų individų tokie patys. Kitaip tariant, visų žmonių ji tapati sau, taigi sudaro visiems žmonėms bendrą, antasmeninio pobūdžio psichinį pagrindą.“ Kažkuriame iš aiškinamųjų video, kuriuos pasitelkiau stengdamasi suprasti šią knygą, buvo teigiama, kad kolektyvinė pasąmonė nėra įgimta ar paveldima. Iš diskusijų su vyru išplaukė palyginimas, kad kolektyvinė pasąmonė yra kaip vanduo, kuriame visi žmonės stovi. Vanduo nėra tavo kūno dalis, bet esi jame ir gimdamas į jį atsistoji.

Nors Jungas kolektyvinę pasąmonę laikė svarbiausia savo teorijos ašimi, ji man mažiausiai suprantama, tačiau aiškinimai apie archetipus pasirodė gerokai artimesni ir naudingesni. Kuomet S. Freud labai daug ką aiškino per seksualines temas, Jungas pastebėjo, kad tai yra labai siauras požiūris ir nepaaiškina kai kurių simbolinių sutapimų, kai žmonės, gyvenime nieko nesidomėję apie alchemiją ar mitologiją, ima matyti tuos pačius vaizdinius, kuriuos matė žmonės prieš tūkstančius metų. Taip po truputį išvystė savo archetipų teoriją. Keletas jų:
• Šešėlis – mūsų pasąmonė. Tai, ko nesuvokiame sąmoningai, bet galime palyginus ne taip sunkiai dalį savo šešėlio pažinti.
• Persona – mūsų aš. Galima sakyti, kad kažkas panašaus į Freudo ego.
• Animus/anima – vyro moteriškoji ir moters vyriškoji dalis.
• Dvasia ar Senas išminčius. Daug pasakų esame girdėję, kuomet senukas padeda herojui ir akivaizdu, kad tas senukas daug žino, bet jis kartu pasato herojų į pavojų, jei šis pasielgs neteisingai. Taigi, tame išminčiuje glūdi ir tai, kas gera, ir tai, kas pavojinga. Viena be kito neatsiejama.

- Įspūdžiai

Dar labiau nei po Descartes suvokiau, kokia iš tiesų esu tiksliukė. Sodeika kalbėjo apie religinį muzikalumą. Galvojau, kad turiu jo kažkiek. Oj ne, nė kruopelytės. Gal nebent tik užuomazgą. O va Jungas – tikras religinio muzikalumo virtuozas. Jo matomos sąsajos ir simbolika man yra nepasiekiami. Kaip iš tikro gerai, kad visi esame skirtingi ir kad knygos leidžia nors kažkiek pažinti žmones, su visiškai kitokiais pasauliais ir požiūriu, nei maniškis.

Girdėjau, kad „Archetipai ir kolektyvinė pasąmonė“ yra viena iš labiau prieinamų ir suprantamesnių autoriaus knygų. Man tikrai taip nepasirodė. Tačiau nebuvo čia ir neįkandamas riešutėlis. Nors daug ko, ką aiškina autorius nesupratau, bet labai daug ir išsinešiau. Kažkas tikrai yra tuose archetipuose, ar veikiau mituose bei istorijose, kas kabina, kas leidžia susitapatinti ir geriau suprasti save, ar pamatyti tam tikrus savo trūkumus. Tai yra žavingas, paslaptingas ir prasmės kupinas pasaulis. Jungas pastebėjo, kad nukarūnavus religijas, žmones ištinka prasmės krizė, ir jo teorija buvo psichologinis atsakas į šią krizę.

Negaliu pasakyti, kad Jungo aiškinimai mane visiškai įtikino, Kai kuriuos jų tiesiog atmečiau, kaip nepagrįstus, bet neatmečiau jo siūlomo pasaulio. Juk skaitant knygas pasineriame į išgalvotus pasaulius, o jie jaudina ir paveikia ne mažiau, nei tikrovė, kartais net daugiau.

Labai rekomenduoju visiems. Net jeigu jūsų protas pyksis su Jungu, kaip kad maniškis, čia vis tiek galima pasisemti daug ko sau naudingo. Vertingi yra Jungo kultūriniai komentarai bei tam tikri pastebėjimai apie asmenybę. O jeigu esate labiau humanitarai, besidomintys simboliais, gal netgi religijomis ir mitais, manau, šioje knygoje sau rasite dar daugiau naudos, nei aš. Na, bet jeigu manote, kad psichologija yra ne mokslas, tai po šios knygos, manau, tokia nuomonė tik sustiprės.

Citata:

„Šioje srityje visiškai neįmanoma nubrėžti griežtas ribas ir formuluoti tikslias sąvokas, nes archetipų esmę sudaro jų takumas ir abipusis vienas kito persmelkimas. Archetipus galima apibūdinti tik apytiksliai. Gyvą jų prasmę atskleidžia veikiau apibūdinimo visuma, o ne paskira formuluotė. Bet koks mėginimas suprasti tiksliau bematant pakenkia pats sau, išdildydamas neapčiuopiamo reikšmės branduolio švytėjimą. Nė vieno archetipo neįmanoma apibūdinti paprasta formuluote. Tai indas, kurio niekada nei ištuštinsi, nei pripildysi. Pats savaime egzistuoja tik potencialiai, o įgijęs kokią nors medžiaginę išraišką jau nėra tai, kas buvo anksčiau. Jis nekinta tūkstantmečiais ir vis dėlto jį reikia vis iš naujo aiškinti. Archetipai – tvirti pasąmonės elementai, bet jų pavidalas nuolat kinta.“

[Virginia Cornelia]

Cea mai mare parte a cartii a fost peste puterea mea de intelegere, dar in doua chestiuni tintite am primit raspunsurile pe care le cautam.

[Philip Zyg · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fundamental book, how else could I name it? You find descriptions of the three main, inescapable archetypes underlying Jung's entire philosophy, i.e. the Mother, the Child and the Prankster, as seen in their mostly theoretical aspects. The Child is, of course, the artist: a figure that goes back to the beginning of time and, at the same time, looks ahead at the future of humankind by conjuring up unheard-of solutions in times of crisis.
It goes without saying that artists, writers, painters, web designers etc should treasure this volume as it encompasses nearly all the questions troubling you as a creative force: what is art for? What's the role of the artist? Who should I create for?

[Žydrūnas Jonušas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tai nėra tinkamiausias pirmasis skaitytinas Jungo darbų rinkinys. Tikriausiai reikėtų pradėti nuo "Psichologinių tipų", bet tą faktą sužinojau post factum :)

Negaliu 100% tvirtinti, kad man Jungas įrodė, kad psichikos archetipai išvis egzistuoja. Baisiai sunku juos apčiuopti, o apčiuopus - apibrėžti. Jis ir pats sako, kad tai sunkiai pasiduodantis reikalas, nors kažkas tokio matyt yra.

9/10 sielos ekspeditorių. Man labiausiai patiko skyrių apibendrinimai, kuriuose Jungas nutolsta nuo temos ir išplaukia į plačius filosofijos, antropologijos ir mitologijos vandenynus. Iš ten ir keletas citatų be konteksto:

Sukelti konfliktą - liuciferiška dorybė tikrąja šio žodžio prasme. Konfliktas įžiebia afektų ir emocijų ugnį, ir ši ugnis, kaip bet kuri kita, turi du aspektus, būtent sukuria karštį ir šviesą.

Komunistinė valstybė - tai ne kas kita, kaip absoliutinė monarchija, kurioje nėra valdinių, yra tik baudžiauninkai.

Kaip kiekvienas individas atsiranda iš vyriškųjų ir moteriškųjų genų, o lytį lemia vienų ar kitų genų persvara, taip - vyro psichikos atveju - tik sąmonė paženklinta vyriškumo, o pasąmonė, priešingai, yra moteriškos kokybės. Moters atveju priešingai.

Didžiausia nuodėmė yra nesąmoningumas, o jai kuo nuolankiausiai atsiduoda net tie, kurie turėtų būti žmonių mokytojai ir sektini pavyzdžiai.

[tea, boginja opste prakse · Rating 5 out of 5]

sxto je ovo bez majke ostala

[Shawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Introduction

I became curious about Carl Jung after reading Scott Peck’s references to him in A Road Less Traveled .

This particular work of Jung’s may be organized into five essential categories, which address: (1) the conscious mind, (2) the personal unconscious, (3) the collective unconscious, (4) archetypes and (5) the process of individualization.

The Consciousness

There can be no consciousness when there is no one to say: ‘I am conscious’. After hundreds of years, someone came to realize that this wonderful world of mountains, oceans, suns, moons, galaxies, plants, animals and ourselves actually “exists”. In the moment that we came to “know”, the world sprang into our perception and, for us, it came into being, arising from the bestial regions.

Jung relates this coming of consciousness to the Genesis account, wherein God said: “let there be light” and so there followed the separation of consciousness and unconsciousness. Later, through Christ, God brought an even more expanded consciousness into the world.

Jung points out that things must be perceived in order to be experienced. This is very distinct from mere instinctual living. Every advance along the path of conscious realization adds to the world, as we know it.

Jung paints an image of the consciousness as springing forth like an infant from the unconsciousness, which constantly threatens to swallow it up again. Like a child, the consciousness cannot grow without separating from its unconscious origins. Thus, the consciousness grows out of and away from the unconsciousness, which it comes to see as evil.

There is then, a polarity between consciousness and unconsciousness. Our conscious intentions are continually disturbed and thwarted by unconscious intrusions, contradictory impulses, and inhibitions. And conversely, the enlargement of the consciousness continues to occur as new and vital contents find their way into our perception. This is the Logos , which continues to extricate itself from the primal darkness and the animality of unconsciousness.

Jung sees the role of the consciousness as a controller for the unconsciousness and asserts that pathological problems emerge when such control is lost. Jung regards the mental supremacy of consciousness as the reason for human success and offers repetitive warnings to those who would seek to explore their subconscious selves: “to never, on any account, imperil their consciousness”.

Jung suggests that the consciousness was absurdly small in primitive man, but has expanded over time. Over history, we see that Reason (the Logos, Righteousness) has become active in the world, residing in the psyche of mankind. Heralded by Jesus, the Logos has arrived into the world and grows within our active consciousness. It seeks to overcome and replace the blinder instinctive demands of unconsciousness.

We must choose to dwell within Reason, amidst that which causes us to flourish, standing apart from primitive animality. This is no less than the struggle to transcendence from the animal state, from the state of being God’s pet animal to the state of being a volitional proponent for God.

Things that subvert or weaken the consciousness, such as substance abuse, meditation to blank out the mind, hypnosis, etc., tend to make way for the emergence of resistant demonic entities that Jung labels “archetypes”.

The Personal Unconscious

Jung suggests that the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed. Because such weaknesses are repressed into the unconscious, the consciousness can believe itself to be its own master.

Conflict tends to result when the consciousness chooses to recognize the unconsciousness. This is because the subconsciousness doesn’t flatter us with a lovely mask of persona like the ego in our consciousness produces. This confrontation is sufficient enough to frighten most people away from venturing too far into the unconscious realm.

Conversely, for those who are able to look at this part of themselves, there open possibilities for spiritual growth and for transcending into someone that is more in accord with reality.

The Collective Unconscious

In contrast to the “personal unconsciousness”, Jung defines the “collective unconsciousness” as comprised of things that have never been in consciousness, but which owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Jung remarks that: “The man of the past is alive in us today to a degree undreamt of.“

For Jung, the collective unconsciousness dates from a time when the consciousness did not think but only perceived and operated by instinct. Jung recognizes that we have moved out of this time but we still harbor pre-existent thinking. We are still ascending out of unreasoned, instinctual living.

Jung points out that we are obliged to convert physical events into psychic processes as soon as we want to say anything about knowledge. This translates physical events into psychic events. Thus, communicative and transmittable bits of nonphysical consciousness are being accumulated, which coalesce into what Jung calls the collective unconsciousness.

We explain by heredity certain talents which can be traced back through entire generations. We similarly explain unlearned, yet complicated, instinctive actions in animals. In the same way, man possesses a “preformed psyche” that contains distinct features, which are traceable to family antecedents. No man is born totally new, but contains unconsciously a psychic structure developed by his ancestors over time. Thus, consciousness grows out of an unconscious psyche which is older than it.

From within this “collective unconscious”, there hails certain instinctual manifestations, which Jung refers to as “archetypes”. Jung suggests that these archetypes are “unconscious images of the instincts”. In other words, Jung’s archetypes are personifications of patterns of instinctual behavior that lay ready to spring into projection whenever they find an opportunity to subvert the consciousness. Because of their primitive, uncivilized origins for lust, power and dominance, most of us would typically refer to these archetypes as demons.



Archetypes

The label that Jung gives to the demons from the unconsciousness is very misleading. The term “archetype” refers to a typical example of something and these entities that Jung describes are anything but “typical”. In fact, Jung admits that they can cause a devastating change of personality, generally in the form of megalomania or its opposite. Jung says:

“There is no lunacy people under the domination of an archetype will not fall prey to. When a situation occurs which corresponds to a given archetype, that archetype becomes activated and a compulsiveness appears, which, like an instinctual drive, gains its way against all reason and will. The archetypes are found in every individual and their effect is always stronger where consciousness is weakest and most restricted.” -Carl Jung

In fact, Jung informs us that the archetypes can only gain form by projecting themselves upon the consciousness. Jung admits this is possession, writing as follows:

“The chief danger is that of succumbing to the fascinating influence of the archetypes. If there is already a predisposition to psychosis, it may even happen that the archetypal figures will escape from conscious control altogether and become completely independent, thus producing the phenomena of possession.” -Carl Jung

Anyone who is honest with themselves must admit that there is a psychic life which is not subject to the caprices of our will. Fears, moods, obsessions, plans, and hopes come to us, often with no visible causation.

Meet Jungs Archetypes

Jung has very limited success in describing the various entities that he, as a psychiatrist, has observed deep within peoples unconsciousness. Following are brief explanations for some of the archetypes identified by Jung:

The Shadow: Jung names the first archetype that one will meet as they descend into the unconsciousness “The Shadow”. The Shadow consists essentially of the suppressed self. The Shadow is that part of us that we’ve suppressed or failed to accept for whatever reason. When we encounter the shadow, we discover with terror certain unseen factors about ourselves. Getting past the Shadow (getting to know the suppressed self) is a narrow door, beyond which, Jung contends, even scarier entities await. The Shadow personifies the inferior character traits that the subject refuses to acknowledge about himself.

The Wise Old Man: Another archetype Jung identifies is “The Wise Old Man”. In referring to his “Wise Old Man” archetype, Jung remarks as follows: “If the name ‘Lucifer’ were not prejudicial, it would be a very suitable one for this (particular) archetype. But I have been content to call it the archetype of the “Wise Old Man”. This “Wise Old Man” archetype immediately made me think of the Papa Legba Lwa prominent in Haitian Vodou .


Haitian Temple I observed near Gallette Chambon depicting Papa Legba, a "Wise Old Man" archetype.

The Anima: - The Anima emerges in males and bears feminine traits. It manifests as a mischievous, shape-shifting feminine being with numerous transformations and disguises.

The Animus: - The Animus emerges in females and bears masculine traits.

The Mother Figure: - The Mother Figure can take the form of a witch or a goddess. Because the mother is the precondition of every child, she symbolizes the unconsciousness from which the consciousness must detach itself. Thus, the consciousness ultimately begins to enter into opposition to her.

The Trickster - The trickster deploys malicious pranks and exhibits powers as a shape-shifter, often appearing as half animal. Those possessed by The Trickster are very unpredictable and often play malicious jokes on other people only to ultimately fall victim to vengeance. Jung describes the Trickster as possessing a psyche that has hardly left the animal level.

Jung identifies these archetypes as the causes of neurotic and psychotic disorders. In fact, I’d venture to say, that if the reader doesn’t already suffer psychotic issues, the same could potentially be aroused just by reading Jung, with his outlandish fetish for these mysterious archetypes. Certainly, humanity is abysmally unconscious of the demonism that clings to it.

Such demons have reality only to the extent that they can affect the conscious mind, either by luring the conscious into being their accomplice or by subjugating the consciousness by fear. Jung sees the task of psychotherapy as dissolving the projections of the archetypes in order to restore the authority of the consciousness.

I’m reminded of this warning issued by C.S. Lewis in his book The Screwtape Letters: “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”

Individuation

Jung defines “Individuation” as the process by which the consciousness comes to know and relate to the unconsciousness. However, Jung repeatedly warns of the dangers involved in this process, which are manifested in neurosis, psychosis, and schizophrenia, all of which Jung sees as situations whereby the unconsciousness has overthrown the consciousness to some degree.

But Jung also sees the necessity for descending into the dark depths of the unconsciousness as a prerequisite for growth. Jung says that the cautious man who avoids the danger lurking in the unconscious depths throws away the opportunity to change into something more complete. But then, in contradiction, Jung writes: “If one can possibly avoid it, one ought never to identify with an archetype, for, as psychopathology, and certain contemporary events show, the consequences are terrifying.” So what does Jung mean by individuation?

Clearly Jung does not mean that one should emulate the archetypes of the unconsciousness. Instead one must subject the unconsciousness to the consciousness of the Logos, which is that will to righteousness that bears against our wanton and unruly animalistic instincts. When we do this we choose to favor something much grander, which is attained through the sacrifice of instinctual urges.

However, the price that we pay for uplifting the Logos is to be set upon by the unconscious animals. Jung cites the crucifixion as an example of the sort of punishment awaiting one brave enough to venture like a Prometheus into the orbit of the unconscious masses. And yet, the conscious person has come to understand that the Logos is a special gift for mankind, present in us by shear grace, and capable of successfully combating the vilest of creatures that may still linger in the unconsciousness or elsewhere.

Thus, the whole process of life is about nurturing the consciousness, growing it, and getting it to stand firm against the assailants from the unconsciousness that manifest in the form of urges, instincts, and drives; not necessarily to eliminate these urges all together, but clearly to domesticate them under the firm control of the consciousness.

Yet, even after defeating the archetypes, there remain three constructs of consciousness that work against our journey into individuation: ego, myth, and dogma.

Ego

Jung identifies the ego, not as an archetype, but as a segment of the consciousness. The ego is sort of like the consciousness trying to form its own entity to contradict the Logos. Jung warns of great psychic dangers connected with the domination of the ego-consciousness.

The ego consists of all the things we preserve in consciousness that we admire about ourselves. The ego consists of the consciously active persona that we’ve developed for ourselves. The ego is resisted and defeated in the same way the archetypes are defeated: by following the Logos.

Myth

Our conscious minds require explanations for what we do not know or understand. The archetypes from our unconsciousness are all too quick to offer us explanations when we are confounded.

Myths are like primitive scientific hypothesis. Essentially, all of our explanations are myths because our conscious perception is so infantile. If we discover something strange and unexplainable, we make up a story, a projection, a hypothesis to explain it. For example, if a strange object drops from the sky, we must immediately hypothesize about its nature and origin. It is the same with any unexplainable event. Our minds require that we speculate and we most often do so by telling stories, which can eventually become belief systems.

Everything that man should be but yet cannot be lives as mythology. We are called to be “as Christ” but we cannot be, just as we cannot fly, bear superhuman strength, slay dragons, or carry the earth upon our shoulders. Because we cannot, our consciousness is afflicted by an inexorable quest that is only appeased by myth, by hypothesizing stories about how it was done by a certain hero human.

It is in much the same way that we hypothesize in science. Until we solve the dilemma, the hypothesis stands as adapted myth, as a salve upon the festering quest yet to be resolved, healed, and closed. What man says but cannot do is but myth. To become real it must become manifest in his actions.

The danger for us is getting trapped within the mythology, failing to look beyond it, or snuggling into the comfort it provides as an excuse for not finding the next solution. Mythological stories are and should be adjusted as our knowledge grows. Just as Galileo should have been praised, instead of excommunicated, for illuminating the truth of a heliocentric solar system, so we must alter our explanations when necessary, as we attain more and more scientific knowledge.

Dogma

Others become content with simple moral conduct; that is to say, with adherence to the law. For such ones, behavior prescribed by rule becomes a substitute for spiritual transformation. Rituals become accepted by such people without question or reflection, much as everyone decorates Christmas trees or hides Easter eggs without ever knowing what these customs mean.

However, dogma can eventually become dubious and no better example exists than extreme fundamentalism. Dogma is a necessity for us if we don’t know the Logos, for without either, we’ll confront the void; we’ll confront the horror of the blank barrenness of the world and this will send us scurrying back to the old myths. Jung writes of this as follows:

“Hence primitives are afraid of uncontrolled emotions because consciousness breaks down under them and gives way 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 the evil omen, propitiation, purification, and the production by sympathetic magic of helpful occurrences.” -Carl Jung

We use dogma to squelch the struggles of our reason against the unknown but this brings us nearer to the bleakness of indoctrination. Dogma is a deceptive light that illuminates only what we think we already know and spreads darkness over those things that we still need to learn. When we put doctrine in the place of reality, we sacrifice reason. Dogma can thus become a retarding ideal.

Conclusions

If the conscious mind is able to free itself from the fascination of evil and become no longer obliged to live compulsively, then the darkness and evil will withdraw due to a loss of energy and remain unconscious. Otherwise such evil will feed upon our fears, stress, and worry; or manifest in response to our purposeful conjuring.

In all his ravings over the archetypes, the question that Jung hasn’t addressed is the personification of that which our consciousness really wants to grow into. That is, our perception of the most beautiful and worthy form, which is our true God, the only One that is truly a proponent for us to flourish and grow. We find this God, this Logos, in our conscious reason, where we seek it, uplift it, and assimilate it. It is our salvation.

[Bohemian Abdul · Rating 2 out of 5]

الترجمه لم تكن بالمستوى المأمول واظن انه كان بالإمكان إخراجها بشكل افضل ممايبسط الكتاب بدل تعقيده ..حيث شعرت انها حرفيه ..وفي كثير من المواضع (سيئة) ، ولايوجد بينها ترابط ،قرأت كتبا اصعب من هذا ومع ذلك كانت واضحه بشكل اكبر حيث ترجمت بطريقة جيده وصياغه مفهومه وان كانت صعبه . اما هنا فهي اقرب للأسلوب التجاري ،وسأنصح بعدم قراءته بترجمة دار الحوار ...حتى تتوفر ترجمة افضل .عامة الكتاب مهم واعتقد انه من الافضل حاليا قرأته بالإنجليزية او الفرنسيه ..اتمنى من دور النشر ان تخصص مترجمين يعملون على مؤلفات معدومة مثل هذه بحيث يشمل جميع مؤلفات الكاتب ، والامثله كثيره:
علي مصباح -نيتشه
جورج طرابيشي -فرويد
عادل زعيتر-غوستاف ليبون
بهذه الطريقة سيتم اخراج الكتاب بشكل افضل بدل الاعتماد على ترجمة يتيمه او ترجمتين ، تخرج الكتاب بشكل غير مفهوم ودون الاخذ بتسلسل مراحل الكاتب المتغيره بحكم العامل الزمني ،مما يحد من فهم مرامي ومقاصد المؤلف.
وجدت ان الكثير من تفسيرات يونغ قريب للفلسفات الباطنيه والصوفيه ، مع شيء من الخيمياء فكل رمز بسيط يتخذ عنده تفسيرا قد يكون مبالغا به .
حوى الكتاب العديد من التفاسير المرتبطه بالاديان الابراهيميه وحتى الاديان القديمة ، منها تفسير يونغ لقصة موسى مع الخضر كماوردت في القرآن .هذا ثالث كتاب اقرأه ليونغ ومازلت اجده اصعب واقل اقناعا من فرويد .
النجمتان بسبب ضعف الترجمة
..حتى النجمتان أجدهما اكثر مما تستحق !!

[Sammy Sutton · Rating 4 out of 5]

What can one say about Carl Jung? We are only beginning to really understand the complexity of the man and his theories. He is certainly making more sense to me as the years progress. This book delves into the Archetypes, and collective conscious science is now proving exists. This book defines the Shadow, which lurks among Jungs self and work.

[Marina · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Parecería que el hombre que busca en vano su existencia y hace de esa búsqueda una filosofía, sólo por medio de la vivencia de la realidad simbólica reencuentra el camino de regreso hacia un mundo en el cual ya no es un extranjero". ▪️Conocido es Jung por ser discípulo de Freud, pero menos conocida es su obra y lo relacionada que está con la experiencia espiritual, simbólica, inconsciente y religiosa del hombre. Jung aborda en esta obra la cuestión del inconsciente colectivo, una suerte de conocimiento compartido que crea culturalmente y durante siglos de historia ciertos arquetipos acerca de diferentes personalidad y formas de entender el mundo. Lo cierto es que leer a Jung me ha sorprendido. Hay bastantes explicaciones propias del psicoanálisis en la época freudiana que a día de hoy parecen poco plausibles e incluso más propias del prejuicio personal que de la ciencia, pero hay muchos otros acercamientos a ciertos conceptos como la voluntad, la conciencia o los símbolos, que me han encantado.El mismo Jung indica incluso que colocando el arquetipo en un lugar inadecuado es cuando tiende a convertirse en prejuicio. Él los concibe como algo universal, como una herencia de ideas compartidas. Los mitos y las religiones serían así manifestaciones psíquicas del alma. Para Jung la voluntad se concibe en términos energéticos, algo propio de su corriente de pensamiento. La voluntad se dirige hacia un lugar cuando ciertos pensamientos superan el umbral de lo inconsciente y se manifiestan en nuestro consciente. Cuanto más inconsciente es una persona, menos se cuestiona su propio yo. Cuanto más extremas son sus opiniones se convierten en convicciones, no en conocimiento. Me ha interesado mucho también la reflexión que tiene del humano como un ser espiritual porque es simbólico, porque necesita identificarse en símbolos, en ideas. Lo que menos comparto es la idea tal vez tan estructurada o esquemática que tiene de la personalidad de los individuos, cuando habla de los arquetipos de la madre o arquetipos femeninos, veo a las mujeres y a los hijos reducidos en ciertas características que a día de hoy tal vez no se contemplen tanto y que condicionan la personalidad de uno a un único rol. Para mi, aunque se comparten características por cultura y por imitación social, la complejidad de los individuos es más grande y de hecho puede variar en el tiempo. También me llama la atención la crítica que realiza a la sociedad occidental y a nuestra tendencia por dirigirnos hacia las religiones orientales después de en cierta forma rechazar la herencia católica construida. Al final, para Jung el ser humano acaba necesitando esa especie de representación mística. En definitiva, son muchas cosas las que pueden extraerse y debatirse de la lectura, algo que a mí ya me parece suficiente motivo para recomendarlo. 🌹

[Sofia Farto · Rating 5 out of 5]

El descubrimiento del inconsciente colectivo por Jung es, sin duda, uno de los avances más significativos en el estudio de la naturaleza humana y nadie me puede hacer cambiar de opinión !!! No me puedo creer que dejara este libro inacabado hace dos años….menos mal que la vida me ha llevado a reencontrarme con él. Supongo que sí que existe un tiempo idóneo para cada lectura; καιρός que diría Isócrates.
Complejo si es la primera lectura de psicología analítica a la que se enfrenta uno (recomiendo leer antes “El hombre y sus símbolos” para empezar poco a poco y de manera asequible en este mundillo de locos), pero es que no tiene desperdicio. Si me tuviera que quedar con algo sería con el capítulo sobre la “individuación” del ser y su paralelismo con el arquetipo del héroe. Es fascinante cómo Jung expone con una claridad admirable el proceso psíquico de la lucha contra nuestra sombra, del descenso y posterior ascensión. Es como si estuviera hablando de la resurrección del alma.
¡Si has vivido algo parecido, tienes que leerlo!

[Mohamadjavad Taghipour · Rating 4 out of 5]

روانشناسی یونگ و به خصوص پرداختن به کهن‌الگوها در این کتاب نمود کاملتری دارد. البته پیچیدگی‌های کلام یونگ پابرجاست.
۲۳ خرداد ۱۴۰۲

[Nhilen]

Me rindo, va de retro psicoanalisto alquímico senil

[William Strasse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, so if you like Jung, you will like this. I'm not going into great detail about the book itself because if you want detail, Carl's your man. What is funny to me is that I'd started into this book a couple times and just knew I didn't have the attention span for it at the time. Then I picked it up again about a month or two ago and started devouring it. It got a little slow towards the end and I finally gave up on the last 100 pages or so about mandalas, but other than that it is great. A co-worker saw me reading it and told me "I feel that is twisting your mind." I responded that my mind has been progressively twisted by many different forces since birth and this book has actually helped me see in what ways it has. I'm someone who tends to think in images and symbols maybe a little more than most and our culture especially manipulates images and symbols to achieve desired results (namely selling you crap you don't really want or need.) Jung uses folk tales from different cultures that could not have really had the level of communication one would need to have such similar archetypes implanted consciously into these stories to make his case for a collective unconscious, and I think he does an excellent job.

[Hassan Zayour · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading many books by Jung, and after finishing this one now, it becomes of absolutely no doubt for me that this man is a complete genius who has managed to successfully untangle many of life's underlying dynamics concerning the human psyche.
I am left in absolute awe as I read how he decomposed and analyzed the archetypes of the unconscious, presenting us with this masterpiece.
His knowledge and discussion of Surah Al Kahf from the Quran, one of my favorite chapters of the Quran, left me in further astonishment.
It might be true that I do not agree with him on many ideas. It might be true that I have many inquiries concerning the system he follows. However, I must stand back and admire the techniques this man uses, absolutely full of many lessons.
While writing this book, I suppose Jung was still a bit influenced by Freud, especially when it comes to the mother and father archetypes. However, his touch is always present.
Amazing read.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is par for the course with Jung. He has some really neat ideas, which he describes with lots of obscure references to European history, culture and mythology. The usual problem is that it very hard to get into if you're not already familiar with his work, and even then it can be a laborious chore. This book, probably more than any other, captures some of his more novel and interesting ideas, namely the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, hence the name. He does a fairly good job making the case for the unconscious as at least a serious topic of study (and I'll give him that, because that battle still had to be fought when this was first published). Beyond that, it's a grab bad of sharp insights, neat ideas, and obscure references.

If you really like Jung, it's worth a read. Otherwise, I would recommend starting with Anthony Storr's Jung Reader.

[Anne Rowlands · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was fairly disappointing. With all the hype about Jung I would have thought it be better but his initial argument is deeply flawed and it just gets worse from their. He's also s but sexist, not horribly so (no worse than others at his time), but the assumptions he makes don't make logical sense anymore.
If you don't mind the flaws and can get through heaps of really bad anthropology then this is for you.