Jungian Archetypes: Jung, Godel, and the History of Archetypes

by Robin Robertson

Twenty-five hundred years ago, Pythagoras taught that the simple counting numbers are the basic building blocks of reality. A century and a half later, Plato argued that the world we live in is but a poor copy of the world of ideas . Neither realized that their numbers and ideas might also be the most basic components of the human archetypes . This book traces the modern evolution of this idea from the Renaissance to the 20th century, leading up to the archetypal hypothesis of psychologist C. G. Jung, and the mirroring of mathematical ideas of Kurt Gödel.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction

324 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1995

About the author

Robin Robertson has spent a life-time bridging the worlds of psychology, science, business and the arts. He's a clinical psychologist and writer who has published seventeen books and more than two hundred articles in either psychology or his hobby field of magic.

He's lectured widely and has taught graduate level courses on Jungian psychology for both the California Institute of Integral Studies, and for the Jungian Studies program at Saybrook University.

Before becoming a psychologist, he was a vice-president of software development for a large insurance company, and for nearly thirty years, he's been a consultant responsible for all computer decisions to a multi-employer pension plan.

Robin has separate undergraduate degrees in mathematics and English literature, as well as an M.A. in counseling psychology, and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

Robin's books, often on Jungian psychology or the relationship between psychology and science, have gone through multiple printings, new revised editions, and foreign translations. Since 1986, he's been a writer, editor, columnist and editorial board member of the Jungian journal "Psychological Perspectives" (a beautiful journal that speaks not merely to specialists, but to everyone who loves Jung.)

He has also been heavily involved with the applications of chaos and complexity theory, and, has been a contributing editor for "Cybernetics & Human Knowing" (a journal that looks at deep issues about the nature of reality).

He is a life-time amateur magician, and a member of the Order of Merlin of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, who has created or co-created original effects that have appeared in six books and many magic magazines.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Laura Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did enjoy reading this book despite struggling to understand much of the mathematical theories. Is interesting to learn of the relationship between science, maths and the development of psychology. I was keen to read the philosophical viewpoints and the overall historical timeline of each area's progression. I thought it was well written: easily accessible to the 'lay' person, despite the complexity of the topics that are covered. Very interesting, challenging and thought-provoking read.

[Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an attempt to parallel the philosophy that drove the discovery of theories in mathematics and the development of the field of psychology. There are brief introductions and simple explanations of milestones reached in both fields. The parallels are glued together, speculatively, through the concept that the psyche and the field of mathematics both "prove" a collective unconscious that is infinite and as of yet not wholly realized in humanity.

*Whew* I think that's the summary of the hypothesis of the book. ?

I'm not sure if my lack of full understanding of the content is due to the misconceptions I hold or due to my reading into associations the author makes in the text. The associations seem like speculation and although there are many, many references I could not help but question the point or argument that the author is trying to make. I'm not even sure if my above summary is the point of the book.

Regardless... it was enjoyable to read because I love reading about the history of theory and there is plenty of that to sink your teeth into with this text.. ineluctably so

[Wibisono Yamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

We’ve come a long way in our history of the archetypes. With the dawn of the Renaissance, we awoke from our long slumber and looked out again at the world around us, at some point we started to observe the mind doing the observing. In the late 17th century, flushed with Newton’s success with his laws, Locke developed an explicitly rationalist/materialist description of the mind. While in the 18th century, Hume suggested that Newton's Laws is just a decisive evidence for the claim that nature will remain unknowable in principle, a mysterium. There was no longer the possibility of ignoring the issue. Kant took a huge step toward resolution of the problem with his theory that the most fundamental laws of nature, like the truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the structure of the world as we experience: all perception is psychological.

We’ve seen how mathematics followed a similar path. When it came out of its slumber early in the 17th century, the first product was analytic geometry, which demonstrated the equivalence of geometry and arithmetic. That soon led to the discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz. Calculus enabled scientists to quantify both their observations and their theories to an extent hitherto inconceivable. But calculus depended on infinite processes, a fact that at the time was only dimly appreciated. Just as Locke’s attempt to present a materialist picture of the mind led to the problems presented by Berkeley and Hume, the development of calculus should have led ineluctably to the problems of infinity. The problem of infinite limits in calculus, however, was well hidden in the foundations of mathematics. Though still consciously unresolved, the issue continued to evolve in the unconscious. By the second half of the 19th century, psychology finally emerged from the unconscious, wearing the twin faces of experimental and clinical psychology. It took someone like Freud, who bridged both camps, to discover the unconscious. It took someone like Jung, who bridged not only both camps, but also science and philosophy, to discover the collective unconscious. At the same time that psychology began to emerge out of philosophy, Cantor’s discovery of transfinite set theory defined a new mathematics. For the first time, all of mathematics was (at least potentially) brought under a single umbrella. With mathematics’ foundations now fully in view, the previously hidden problems could no longer be ignored. Paradoxes appeared in mathematics, much as they had appeared in philosophy. Russell tried to shift the ground to logic, Hilbert tried to shift to finite meta-mathematical solutions, but the paradoxes lay hidden there as well. Eventually Gödel was able to prove that the paradoxes would never go away.Axioms in set theory show undecideability, this can only mean that these axioms do not contain a complete description of reality. Isn’t it more likely that the world is richer than we can ever hope to comprehend, with archetypes lay beneath? Just like what Jung pointed out...there is clearly no final way to describe or to delimit the Self.

[Frederic De meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the first half of the book the author provides a rich history of mathematical theory. In the second half a somewhat vague analysis of Jung's archetypes. The link between both? Even after reading the book, I still need to guess. A four star nevertheless for the elegant writing skills of the author...

[Jimmy A · Rating 3 out of 5]

The maths stuff seems pretty complex and hard to understand. The only part I could really understand was the chapters about Jung, these are a good little introduction to Jung, it makes me want to delve into Jung alot more.

[Calvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent synthesis of mathematic, scientific, philosophic, psychological and spiritual concepts and thinking.

[Francisca · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aquellos que conozcan a Robin Robertson sabrán de su estudio constante en todo aquello que se refiere a la psicología profunda que Carl Jung tomó como modelo. En Arquetipos Junguianos, que publica la editorial Obelisco, Robertson propone reflexionar sobre la relación estrecha entre la teoría psicoanalítica de Jung y las claves matemáticas del filósofo y matemático Kurt Gödel.

Para empezar, leemos la importancia que ha tenido la unión de la ciencia, el arte y la filosofía en el hombre renacentista. Para este, toda observación en el mundo, ya provenga de la naturaleza, de sus sentidos y sentimientos interiores, o de sus propios pensamientos -tanto lógicos como sensibles- sobre la vida que le rodea, es vital para que pueda experimentar, desarrollarse y nutrirse. Este profundo sentimiento aporta algo que el hombre de ciencias puras rehuye, tal y como refleja Robertson al hablar de Leonhard Euler o Jean Le Rond D’Alembert. Estos suelen hacer caso omiso a las cosas que sienten -y pertenecen- al alma o espíritu. Por ello, la filosofía empieza a tomar relevancia para conseguir cierta unión entre lo observado, lo pensado y lo sentido; y es gracias a ello que nace el psicólogo tal y como lo entendemos.

El libro nos aporta una breve y concisa información sobre cómo surge la psicología y cómo empieza a ser aplicada. Así, conocemos la importancia de la psicología experimental que William James aplicó y cómo Freud logró encontrar y usar un enlace inequívoco entre el inconsciente y la consciencia, lo que tenemos oculto y lo que somos capaces de pensar. Es así como Carl Jung, discípulo de Freud, formuló su propio modelo, considerando que nuestra psique está gobernada por arquetipos. Gracias a ellos encontramos y relacionamos lo que pertenece a nuestro inconsciente y, asimismo, de lo que somos conscientes.

Los arquetipos, regidos por patrones que más adelante se podrá ver hasta qué punto están relacionados con la lógica y la matemática, nos ayudan y sostienen en nuestra vida y en aquello que nos rodea. Robertson resalta los más importantes, tales como la sombra -totalidad de nuestro inconsciente-, el self o sí-mismo -la totalidad del hombre o unión de todos sus opuestos-, o el ánima/ánimus -nuestra parte femenina y nuestra parte masculina-; arquetipos, todos ellos, que nos hacen ver esas cualidades de nuestra psique que nos sostienen y, a su vez, nos permiten desarrollarnos como personas sociales e individuales que somos.

Las ideas de Gödel, al igual que las de Pitágoras y Platón en su forma más resumida, nos muestran cómo las matemáticas son entidades arquetípicas que toman por forma el número, la lógica y el lenguaje. Estas pueden verse tanto en la geometría como en los diversos estudios físicos que se han elaborado de la naturaleza y de cómo percibimos las cosas, la realidad. Para Gödel, las matemáticas no pueden basarse solo en la lógica, pues estas también pueden transformarse en símbolos; las matemáticas proceden directamente del logos.

Poco a poco observamos cómo tanto para Jung como para Gödel hay una realidad subyacente que rige el mundo físico y el mundo mental. Gracias a esta conjunción de teorías percibimos cómo cada arquetipo y cada número están estrechamente unidos y son totales en sí mismos. Si somos capaces de ver esta relación podemos intuir que el hombre renacentista del que se nos habla al principio del libro o el arquetipo total que podemos alcanzar, el self o sí-mismo, -e incluso me atrevo a añadir nuestra concepción total que tenemos del mundo- son la suma de todos los arquetipos, todos los números; todas las formas que nos rigen y que podemos llegar concebir. De ahí la importancia que asume Jung en la unión de los contrarios. Si somos capaces de unir filosofía y naturaleza, arte y matemáticas; si somos capaces de hacernos amigos de nuestra sombra, de aprender a ver qué enseñanza tiene nuestro inconsciente, tanto personal como colectivo -en el que todos estamos unidos-, podemos percibir qué parte nos falta para completarnos y autorrealizarnos como seres humanos.

Así, consideramos, la suma de todo y de todas nuestras partes, tanto internas como externas, la suma de todos los números, leyes y formas, nos hace y nos realiza, así como también nos vitaliza y, sobre todo, integra y une, ya sea con nosotros mismos o con el resto del mundo y de los seres humanos.

Publicado originalmente en http://diarios.detour.es/literaturas/...

[Aaron · Rating 1 out of 5]

Convoluted, disorganized, and seems like the author can't make up his mind what kind of book he is trying to write. This book has rather little to do with archetypes. It was somewhat interesting to learn about Godel and other important figures in the history of mathematics, but Robertson didn't even seem to make any attempt to tie this together with archetypes. It seemed more like he couldn't make up his mind whether to write a history of psychology or of mathematics, and instead of writing two books he decided to haphazardly throw them together into one.