| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision |
| aker:books_and_literature:re-visioning_psychology [2016/01/24 20:32] – janus | books_and_literature:re-visioning_psychology [2017/02/14 04:18] – ↷ Page moved from aker:books_and_literature:re-visioning_psychology to books_and_literature:re-visioning_psychology janus |
|---|
| p. xvii "Everything we know and feel and every statement we make are all fantasy-based, that is, they derive from psychic images. ... Fantasy-images are both the raw materials and finished products of psyche, and they are the privileged mode of access to knowledge of soul. Nothing is more primary." <fc green>So without soul as the symbolic thinking principle there is no communication with psyche, with the Self, with the unconscious.</fc> | p. xvii "Everything we know and feel and every statement we make are all fantasy-based, that is, they derive from psychic images. ... Fantasy-images are both the raw materials and finished products of psyche, and they are the privileged mode of access to knowledge of soul. Nothing is more primary." <fc green>So without soul as the symbolic thinking principle there is no communication with psyche, with the Self, with the unconscious.</fc> |
| |
| | ==== One / Personifying or Imagining Things ==== |
| p3 "From the outset we are assuming that the close connection between the personified world of animism and anima - soul - is more than verbal, and that personifying is a way of soul-making. That is, we are assuming that soul-making depends upon the ability to personify, which in turn depends upon anima. ... \\ What is needed is a revisioning, a fundamental shift of perspective out of that soulless predicament we call modern consciousness." | p3 "From the outset we are assuming that the close connection between the personified world of animism and anima - soul - is more than verbal, and that personifying is a way of soul-making. That is, we are assuming that soul-making depends upon the ability to personify, which in turn depends upon anima. ... \\ What is needed is a revisioning, a fundamental shift of perspective out of that soulless predicament we call modern consciousness." |
| |
| | p23 "Image //is// psyche," says Jung.<fc red><sup>55a</sup></fc> "The psyche consists essentially of images ... a 'picturing' of vital activities."<fc red><sup>55b</sup></fc> |
| | |
| | p46 "An axiom of depth psychology asserts that what is not admitted into awareness irrupts in ungainly, obsessive, literalistic ways, affecting consciousness with precisely the qualities it strives to exclude. Personifying not allowed as a metaphorical vision returns in concrete form; we seize upon people, we cling to other persons. They become invested with repressed images so that they grow in importance, ... while the psyche finds itself more fascinated, more glued and stuck to these concrete individuals than it would have been to the metaphorical persons that are at the root of the projection onto people. Without metaphorical persons, we are forced in desperate clutching literalisms. \\ ... The literalisms into which we constrict our drives hold us faster than do the drives themselves. \\ |
| | p47 ... Others carry our souls and become our soul figures, to the final consequence that without these idols we fall into the despair of loneliness and turn to suicide." |
| | |
| | p49 "This "me," even most deeply experienced as if from the ground of being, seemingly so unique, so truly my own, is utterly collective. For psyche is not mine, and the statements that express my deepest person such as: "I love you," "I am afraid,' "I promise," are collective universals whose value lies just in their impersonality, that they are said by everyone, everywhere. As collective universals, these statemens are archetypally personal, but not literally so.\\ To speak of //my// anima and //my// soul expresses the personalistic fallacy. Although these archetypal experiences of the personal give alt and substance to my personal individuality, making me feel that there is indeed a soul, this "me-ness" is not mine. ... The more profoundly archetypal my experiences of soul, the more I recognize how they are beyond me, presented to me, a present, a gift, even while they feel my most personal possession. ... For such experiences derive from the archetype of the personal, making us feel both archetypal and personal at the same instant." |
| | |