Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
aker:collected_works:cw6 [2015/10/30 22:16] janusaker:collected_works:cw6 [2016/01/31 02:27] janus
Line 917: Line 917:
  
 §797 "... to make a conceptual distinction between //soul// and //psyche// By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious." <fc green>(Cf. this with footnote 72, paragraph 789 - the definition of the //Self// is very similar.  I see the psyche - in its totality - the thing that allows the Self.  The psyche is not different for each person, the Self is...the Self is like the entelechy of the Psyche, thus making it unique.  However, without the Self to realise the potential of what the Psyche has to offer, would it even be there?  As humans, the difference is in the Self, not the psyche I think.  Like the genes that make us, they are the same for each of us...we all have the same genes, building blocks, but none of us are the same.  The psyche / Self interaction is not as discrete as combinations of genes - so the analogy falls short. </fc> \\  §797 "... to make a conceptual distinction between //soul// and //psyche// By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious." <fc green>(Cf. this with footnote 72, paragraph 789 - the definition of the //Self// is very similar.  I see the psyche - in its totality - the thing that allows the Self.  The psyche is not different for each person, the Self is...the Self is like the entelechy of the Psyche, thus making it unique.  However, without the Self to realise the potential of what the Psyche has to offer, would it even be there?  As humans, the difference is in the Self, not the psyche I think.  Like the genes that make us, they are the same for each of us...we all have the same genes, building blocks, but none of us are the same.  The psyche / Self interaction is not as discrete as combinations of genes - so the analogy falls short. </fc> \\ 
-"By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a "personality." <fc green>It would be sad if Jung thought of the soul as purely a complex...or perhaps he sees Spirit as something more metaphysical?  It would be good to Cf. the Egyptian ideas of //[[wp>Ancient//Egyptian//concept//of//the//soul|Ba]]// and //[[wp>Ancient//Egyptian//concept//of//the//soul|Ka]]// here I think.\\ Ka = the vital spark that keeps the body alive.  It was related to food, so almost like our engine.\\ Ba = the soul, the personality that continues beyond death.  It was what made us unique. Egyptian symbol of a bird with human head.</fc>+"By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a "personality." <fc green>It would be sad if Jung thought of the soul as purely a complex...or perhaps he sees Spirit as something more metaphysical?  It would be good to Cf. the Egyptian ideas of //[[wp>Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul|Ba]]// and //[[wp>Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul|Ka]]// here I think.\\ Ka = the vital spark that keeps the body alive.  It was related to food, so almost like our engine.\\ Ba = the soul, the personality that continues beyond death.  It was what made us unique. Egyptian symbol of a bird with human head.</fc>
  
 == Soul as a functional complex or "personality" == == Soul as a functional complex or "personality" ==
  • Last modified: 2017/02/14 05:08
  • by janus