What do you think?
Rate this book
The Syndetic Paradigm: The Untrodden Path Beyond Freud and Jung
In The Syndetic Paradigm, Robert Aziz argues that the Jungian Paradigm is a deeply flawed theoretical model that falls short of its promise. Aziz offers in its stead what he calls the Syndetic Paradigm. In contrast to the Jungian Paradigm, the Syndetic Paradigm takes the critical theoretical step of moving from a closed-system model of a self-regulatory psyche to an open-system model of a psyche in a self-organizing totality. The Syndetic Paradigm, in this regard, holds that all of life is bound together in a highly complex whole through an ongoing process of spontaneous self-organization. The new theoretical model that emerges in Aziz's work, while taking up the fundamental concerns of its Freudian and Jungian predecessors with psychology, ethics, spirituality, sexuality, politics, and culture, conducts us to an experience of meaning that altogether exceeds their respective bounds.
- GenresPsychologyAcademic
332 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2007
7 people are currently reading
232 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 18, 2021
In the book The Syndetic Paradigm: The Untrodden Path Beyond Freud and Jung (2007), Robert Aziz presents an alternative future path for psychoanalysis. He repudiates the old way of seeing world and psyche as predicated on “concretized or fixed forms”. This leads to false absolutes, which in turn produce false certainties. He is very critical of Jungian psychology and its affection for “archetypilization”; how dynamic life and “self-organizing nature” boil down to ‘archetypes’ (fixed form).
Much of his critique of Jungian psychology is both pertinent and intelligent. It is well worth a study. However, the alternative “paradigm” that he offers is really equal to Taoism, a radical ancient Chinese wisdom teaching. It teaches that we should flow with nature and that our action should be consistent with natural tendencies. The keyword in the book is “self-organizing nature”, which comes near to the concept of Tao, but also Hegel’s Geist. Thanks to the ‘synchronistic’ capacity of nature and psyche to produce order spontaneously, we need not have recourse to fixed form.
In my view, Jung’s concept of synchronicity (meaningful coincidence) is a failure, as it lacks empirical veracity; nor has it a good theoretical basis. According to Jung, synchronicity is a rare phenomenon, as it depends on the constellation of psychic archetypes. Aziz’s system, however, predicts that it is ever-present. This is very problematic, as it contradicts the experience of most people.
As his paradigm repudiates fixed form, it breaks not only with psychoanalysis, but with the entire Western tradition, which is Platonic and Christian. This is a hard pill to swallow. After all, Western science builds on the concept of universal laws that are inviolable and eternal. Science cannot fare without absolutes, as Einstein pointed out. There are relativistic phenomena only because there exist strange absolutes, such as the speed of light.
Aziz concludes that there is no fixed form. This is a “truth” that is elevated to a fixed form. It’s a self-contradiction which was pointed out already by Plato. Something is amiss. He renounces the Christian faith (and all religion) because of its dogmatic reliance on fixed forms and the doctrine that salvation can only be secured by way of vicarious atonement. (We cannot help ourselves, because the human will is corrupt.)
Against this, he argues that we can indeed save ourselves, through the development of “ego strength”. The path forward is to integrate all the complexes of the unconscious with ego consciousness. This seems like a major undertaking, considering that our decisions, actions, emotions and behaviour depend on the 95 percent of brain activity that precedes conscious awareness. We are governed by prefabricated “fixed forms”; patterns of thought and feeling, complexes and instincts. In fact, unconscious predetermination is a blessing without which we couldn’t function.
In the area of sexuality, he is not in disagreement with the vital work of Freud. But he disagrees with the “conflict model”, i.e., the way in which sexuality (instinctuality) and culture are seen as opposing forces. Against this, Aziz says that the sexual instinct, as such, is intrinsically moral. It has to do with the ethicality of nature. Self-organizing nature is intrinsically moral. In keeping with his notion of ‘integration’ he argues that sexuality must be made conscious in order to free the sexual instinct from the death grip of the complexes. He says: “At the heart of the problem of human sexuality is the problem of conscious versus unconscious sexuality” (p.123).
But isn’t it a fact that instincts don’t like to become conscious? Should we become self-conscious, when appearing before an audience, for instance, we even forget how to walk properly. To function well, we must rely on an unconscious autopilot. He thinks that we always can go with the flow and forget about fixed form. But there is always a dynamic between conceptualization and spontaneous creativity. With time, religion suffer routinization and becomes stale and boring, although it was full of life in the beginning. So it is with everything! A revolutionary art movement, such as Cubism, suffers routinization, too. Then it’s time for renewal!
In fact, we need fixed forms and rules in order to be creative. A game of chess is played according to strict rules. This allows enormous creativity to take place. A free and democratic society must have law-enforcement. Fixed forms are a boon, until it’s time to modify them.
Aziz’s Taoist version of psychoanalysis doesn’t work, even though his critique of psychoanalysis carries weight. His analysis of Jung’s dream of his father (pp.274ff) reveals how he looks through the warped lens of his own theory. It is a fixed form that skews his interpretation. Such a lapse, according to his own view, is a cardinal sin. He ignores the fact that Jung’s father, the parson, draws great wisdom out of the bible, which is so profound that Jung cannot follow him. Then they both bow down to a biblical equivalent of Christ. These are obvious references to “biblical truths” and the “fixed form” of Christ. But he doesn’t see it. He sees only a father complex that needed to be integrated.
Mats Winther | http://two-paths.com
Much of his critique of Jungian psychology is both pertinent and intelligent. It is well worth a study. However, the alternative “paradigm” that he offers is really equal to Taoism, a radical ancient Chinese wisdom teaching. It teaches that we should flow with nature and that our action should be consistent with natural tendencies. The keyword in the book is “self-organizing nature”, which comes near to the concept of Tao, but also Hegel’s Geist. Thanks to the ‘synchronistic’ capacity of nature and psyche to produce order spontaneously, we need not have recourse to fixed form.
In my view, Jung’s concept of synchronicity (meaningful coincidence) is a failure, as it lacks empirical veracity; nor has it a good theoretical basis. According to Jung, synchronicity is a rare phenomenon, as it depends on the constellation of psychic archetypes. Aziz’s system, however, predicts that it is ever-present. This is very problematic, as it contradicts the experience of most people.
As his paradigm repudiates fixed form, it breaks not only with psychoanalysis, but with the entire Western tradition, which is Platonic and Christian. This is a hard pill to swallow. After all, Western science builds on the concept of universal laws that are inviolable and eternal. Science cannot fare without absolutes, as Einstein pointed out. There are relativistic phenomena only because there exist strange absolutes, such as the speed of light.
Aziz concludes that there is no fixed form. This is a “truth” that is elevated to a fixed form. It’s a self-contradiction which was pointed out already by Plato. Something is amiss. He renounces the Christian faith (and all religion) because of its dogmatic reliance on fixed forms and the doctrine that salvation can only be secured by way of vicarious atonement. (We cannot help ourselves, because the human will is corrupt.)
Against this, he argues that we can indeed save ourselves, through the development of “ego strength”. The path forward is to integrate all the complexes of the unconscious with ego consciousness. This seems like a major undertaking, considering that our decisions, actions, emotions and behaviour depend on the 95 percent of brain activity that precedes conscious awareness. We are governed by prefabricated “fixed forms”; patterns of thought and feeling, complexes and instincts. In fact, unconscious predetermination is a blessing without which we couldn’t function.
In the area of sexuality, he is not in disagreement with the vital work of Freud. But he disagrees with the “conflict model”, i.e., the way in which sexuality (instinctuality) and culture are seen as opposing forces. Against this, Aziz says that the sexual instinct, as such, is intrinsically moral. It has to do with the ethicality of nature. Self-organizing nature is intrinsically moral. In keeping with his notion of ‘integration’ he argues that sexuality must be made conscious in order to free the sexual instinct from the death grip of the complexes. He says: “At the heart of the problem of human sexuality is the problem of conscious versus unconscious sexuality” (p.123).
But isn’t it a fact that instincts don’t like to become conscious? Should we become self-conscious, when appearing before an audience, for instance, we even forget how to walk properly. To function well, we must rely on an unconscious autopilot. He thinks that we always can go with the flow and forget about fixed form. But there is always a dynamic between conceptualization and spontaneous creativity. With time, religion suffer routinization and becomes stale and boring, although it was full of life in the beginning. So it is with everything! A revolutionary art movement, such as Cubism, suffers routinization, too. Then it’s time for renewal!
In fact, we need fixed forms and rules in order to be creative. A game of chess is played according to strict rules. This allows enormous creativity to take place. A free and democratic society must have law-enforcement. Fixed forms are a boon, until it’s time to modify them.
Aziz’s Taoist version of psychoanalysis doesn’t work, even though his critique of psychoanalysis carries weight. His analysis of Jung’s dream of his father (pp.274ff) reveals how he looks through the warped lens of his own theory. It is a fixed form that skews his interpretation. Such a lapse, according to his own view, is a cardinal sin. He ignores the fact that Jung’s father, the parson, draws great wisdom out of the bible, which is so profound that Jung cannot follow him. Then they both bow down to a biblical equivalent of Christ. These are obvious references to “biblical truths” and the “fixed form” of Christ. But he doesn’t see it. He sees only a father complex that needed to be integrated.
Mats Winther | http://two-paths.com
Displaying 1 of 1 review