grumpyJungian Psychology - An introduction
January 6th 2008 02:34
Psychology as science suffers from a distinct and irreducible subjectivity. In all truly scientific enterprises there is an indispensable need to reduce data to measurable and repeatable facts able to be cast in the terms of the currently known, or currently held, consensus of universal physical law. But, the simple fact that human behaviour is a physically measurable consequence of something which cannot be accurately predicted from causal physical conditions means that, regardless of any apparent objective correlations, it is also subject to an irrational factor outside the bounds of current physical science.
Attempts have been made to reduce the irrationality of the psyche by supposing its apparent objectivity to be a chimera created by the operation of multiple and co-contingent physical factors not immediately apparent to the observer. The difficulty with this kind of objective or behavioural psychology is the infinite regression of causes, and the need to infer particular apriori biological conditions and effects without sufficient proven data to support such inferences.
Empirical psychology on the other hand accepts that, regardless of the ground of its irrationality, the psyche presents as an objective factor within the individual, and that its dynamics may be universally defined to just that degree that the biological nature of the species is also defined. Thus, within it's circumscribed world empirical psychology is indeed a science, but a science which at this point cannot claim to mesh with physical science except at those few points where it can assert a definite relationship between the dynamics it studies and immediate physical or biological causes.
As a consequence of its inability to relate its definitions to such universally valid physical laws as would define the parameters of its descriptions, the dynamics empirical psychology studies suffer from a diversity of interpretations. These interpretations group into various schools of thought, each dependant upon and exhibiting the dynamics of a particular grouping of subjective factors: the same subjective factors which are posited as resulting from the dynamics they attempt to define as objective psychic laws.
This is the reason for psychology's constant battle for scientific/philosophical validity: that the subjective circularity of its propositions cannot be rooted out; that - even within a particular school of thought - it cannot define its factual ground by assuming the positivist position available to the so-called objective sciences.
Jung's work helps us to see that there is indeed a way in which the dynamics of the psyche might be interpreted from a position which accepts the essential psychic subjectivity of all data, and deflates both the positivist and metaphysical positions with one fundamental assertion.
Before proceeding further with the exposition of Jung's work, it is necessary to realise the distinction between psychology as a system of knowledge, and the uses of such knowledge within the counselling, therapeutic or analytical practice. There is a decided difference between the understanding say, of the aetiology of the archetypes of the collective unconscious and the subjective experience of them. So much difference in fact that in no way does the scientific reduction of these psychic processes within an explanatory system allow us any "technological" power over their activities within the psyche in the way say, that understanding the science of the internal combustion engine might allow us to repair or modify the motor of a car.
This is simply because, although scientific explanation is objective study, in the case of psychology as a technology of the mind, this reduces to the mere juggling of a semantically related and abstract nomenclature.
Jung's psychological ideas stem from the acceptance of one basic philosophical standpoint: that we can only know what we experience, and that what we experience cannot be differentiated into real or unreal, or objective and subjective except within a universe of discourse where a sensate world is contrasted with an inner world.
[This differentiation of object versus subject appears as a perfectly natural development for a species whose survival requires first and foremost an adaptation to sensate environment. The primal homeostatic instincts depend for their satisfaction upon relationships with the world beyond the senses, so it is only to be expected that a differentiation will gradually be made between those things which appear within the sensate world and those things which appear to the minds eye alone. This process is the concomitant of ego development - the discrimination of an individual subjective psychic position both within, and from, the world of total experience.
From the ego standpoint the world has now become a place of two parts, and it is now possible to attempt to define the apparent relationships within and between these two parts.
At the most primitive level of this discrimination, only that which appears to be within the outer world is distinguished from the totality of experience, and only to the degree that its concreteness is apparent - that it manifests to the observing ego as a thing, a place, or a being, ever separate from itself - and that to deal with it requires bodily adaptation to it's own separate and peculiar laws of being.
It is through adaptive process that the first world view is formed, a world view constructed through simple logical operations not only based upon slowly learned temporal and spatial relationships, but also structured - and contaminated by - the preformed psycho/biological structure underlying consciousness.
So, at the primitive developmental level, the operation of conscious adaptation is guided by a-priori groupings of elements which are essentially the affects within psychic apperception of the natural biological structure.
For the ego consciousness these are image forming tendencies or groupings of thought/ value processes, which within the outer, or now discriminated "objective world" are apprehended as the relationships and correspondences between objective things and events.]
It is these preformed or pre-existing tendencies affecting the dynamic operation of the psyche which Jung termed: the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. "Unconscious" because they operate below the level of awareness, and "collective" because they are related to the species, rather than the individual, at a biological level.
Now, it can be said that the primitive consciousness is therefore "contaminated" by the collective unconscious both in it's imagery and its discriminative relationships. But this is really only a conceit, contingent upon us holding a particular philosophical outlook, i.e., one which judges the world from the extremes of subject/object discrimination.
The point which must be clear in our minds is that the structuring of our experience through this innate structure of our being is natural - that it is the way we are made - and that, regardless of any one sided philosophical or logical argument for a world in which "realness" ought to be discriminable from "unreal ness", it can never be rooted out of our psychic make up.
And indeed, it ought not be attempted to root it out. For it is the primal developmental structure of our being, and it is from and by this structure that we develop both as a species and as conscious individuals.
Seen from Jung's view, there can be no "real" splitting of the world into objective and subjective, merely a subjective split created through the overvaluing and misapplication of ego distinctions. A split which has led to a world view now bifurcated at it's deepest levels by a psychic meta-program which filters every datum through a subject/object grid, a programme strengthened through generations of learning and the accumulation of a knowledge base which has served only to reinforce its seemingly "obvious" validity.
Thus science asks for objective, biologically rationalised proofs of psychological assertions, turning philosophy upon it's head by asserting that only within that part of experience they allow to be "objective" can certainty be had. And indeed, within the narrow scientific rationalist viewpoint there is certainty - even if this certainty be that the world is ruled by uncertainty - ( a paradox which ought to have pointed back to Jung's position - but because of the rigidity of the scientific rationalist position, at this stage remains one of science's "just so" stories)
What must be understood is that our ultimate subjectivity to experience, regardless of its genesis, means that although we might objectify the biological nature of ourselves and seek for answers to our nature only within this frame of reference - we have merely divided the biological part of experience from what is - and was initially even to us - a continuum of psychic experience. To assume that the biological rests upon a rational base and the psychically "subjective" does not, is merely the continuing result of our split world view.
Thus when Jung calls the inferior functions "irrational" he does not mean they are weird or crazy or chaotic, but that they are not "rational" within the bifurcating subject/object world view of scientific logic. Unfortunately our technical language, being structured within this split becomes ambiguous when we try to discuss beneath it's split logic. This is why Jungian ideas only fill out within the language that flows from the unsplit parts of the psyche, and why it then becomes exceedingly difficult to maintain the necessary distinction between Jung's psychological observations as "knowledge of the dynamics of the psyche" and the essentially "non rational" ideas that lie within and between the images of his discourse.
This is where, lacking an understanding of his fundamental viewpoint, Jung appears to the rationalist as a metaphysician rather than a scientist. It is also the point at which those who lack sufficient distinction within themselves from the images of the collective psyche, easily fall into the belief that Jung's work actually sanctions their metaphysical hypostasis. It does nothing of the kind.
Jung's merely shows us that, to the degree we can accept that all experience is valid, is "real" for us, then within our splitting "scientific" logic we must also accept the objectivity of psychic imagery and any structure we might posit as its place of generation.
The dynamic contents of the psyche are our natural inheritance, they define what is natural within us, just as the laws of the organism define it's biological nature. Now, whether the biological self is preconditioned by the psychic structure or vice versa is something we cannot know, so it is easier to see these as extensions of a single nature, a natural unity which, whilst it might be hard to visualise from our split point of view, reveals itself through an essentially unified relationship in which reactive functions effect a continuing balancing of the organism - implying an almost teleological dynamic via the constant interplay of homeostatic adjustment between body/unconscious and mind/consciousness
The very essence of consciousness implies a splitting of this unity and therefore an "unnatural" subjectivity within the psyche becomes effective. We might visualise the rise of consciousness as the essential result of biological interaction within the sensate world - and while this might seem a worthwhile extension of the being, to the wholeness and unity of psycho/biological functioning it is a threat. At all points the nature of life is set against the rise of consciousness, and as it becomes more heightened and able to control what were initially natural reactions, the more likely it is to come into conflict with the underlying laws of its nature.
When this conflict occurs, the consciousness is forced to deal with the overwhelming and immutable forces which support it. In so doing it learns, and from it's initial narrowness and height it falls, yet it's awareness of nature and its store of self knowledge is now broadened. From this point it moves on, incessantly climbing above nature and becoming embroiled in nature - its awareness deepening and broadening with each continuing immersion into conflict.
Thus, when it becomes necessary due to lack of connection with our naturalness, the conflict that arises between us and the dynamics of our nature is an essentially transformative process. The result of a fine balance between the focussed subjectivity of consciousness and the unity of nature. Where consciousness has not the power to withstand the transformative process it becomes broken down and lost within the elements it has come into conflict with.
This transformative process can be seen only at it's best within the operations of the individual psyche, where true consciousness exists. Jung termed this process "individuation", a term which might seem to imply a significant level of awareness, but which can be seen in operation from the most primitive beginnings of consciousness.
In as much as consciousness itself can be said to be a "natural result" of our particular nature, then up to a certain level, the process of individuation can be seen as a pattern defined by the pre-existent laws of our being. Therefore it can be seen as an "archetypal" process, particularly when referenced to conflicts with the projected images or representations of unconscious, collective dynamics.
Archetypal configurations are formed of the natural dynamics of psycho/biological function, but become transcendent objects of the psyche within the reflections of consciousness. Thus the natural, instinctive nurturing behaviour of parents becomes the pattern for the subjective representation of the mother and father archetypes. Where consciousness reflects such representations without an object, the archetypal pattern becomes transcendent, or projected into a "realm beyond" the personal.
In this way the representations of the "Great Mother" and "our Father in heaven" become collectivised and represented within culture. In this same way do all the archetypal patterns become defined within culture. What it is necessary to understand is that the imagery associated with the archetypes is not a part of their substance, but a gradual and mostly collective process of projective definition.
What we have to realise is that with the rise of reflective consciousness the contents of the psyche which are not held within the bounds of the personal ego become "other". This otherness is the projected world of the collective psyche where, through the rationalising nature of consciousness, the affects of the natural mind are objectified and given names and their dynamics moulded into a cosmogony which overlays and unifies the "apparent" or "objective" world.
At the projected, collective level, this unification of the world represents the reflection of the true unity of psychic function. As consciousness develops and the projective overlay is gradually dissolved, the unity of the world becomes more and more a personal or individual problem.
The stability of the individual consciousness is maintained through this relationship to the "other",ie, that which is essentially the rest of the "person". Thus religion contains and unifies this projected "otherness" for the emerging consciousness until, or unless, such projection becomes untenable for the individual. At this point the wholeness of the psyche becomes a problem to the person, and new definitions and new accommodations to the contents beyond consciousness must be found.
Within the active process of "individuation" the person must come to accommodation with the dynamics behind imagery once satisfyingly projected onto the world view. In other words, the consciousness must once more come into direct connection with those contents of the psycho/biological system which it sees as transcendent. This process of accommodation to the natural dynamics of humanness restores the psychic balance and places the ego in relation once more to something which - although ever beyond itself - is simply the ground of its being. One might say that a new "religious" attitude is formed, in which greater awareness is upheld through closer connection to nature.
Such "active" processes are rarely necessary, but when the consciousness has overtaken the world view, when the person is lost within a world which no longer provides meaning, then such therapy provides a way - a dark and dangerous way for some, a light and easy way for others, depending upon the attitudes and adaptive potentials of the person concerned.
| 58 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
But it was informative.
Comment by grumpy
Psyche Science
Grumpys Blog
Photography Craft
I have to admit after I posted this that I realised I had not taken into accout the necessary "sound byte" approach our modern society seems to need in regard to information transfer. But then, some things are naturally going to hurt your brain. Ergo, I resolve not to lower my standards.
I am glad you found it worthwhile. Nevertheless, I shall try in future to be a little more "readable" and a little less academic.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
We live in the age of constant distract...(....oh look I have email ...).ion
You should read some of Phylosopherblogs posts by nonymous.
similar direction.