Reference
Jung, C. G. (1969) 2nd Ed. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche , Including “Synchronicity: An Acausal connecting Principle”
The collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 8. Bollingen Series XX, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. First edition 1960

§105 “The theory is significant at least as a symptom. Even if it has no scientific justification, it has a moral one. It is undoubtedly true that instinctuality conflicts with our moral views most frequently and most conspicuously in the realm of sex. The conflict between infantile instinctuality and ethics can never be avoided.”

§107 “The conflict between ethics and sex today is not just a collision between instinctuality and morality, but a struggle to give an instinct its rightful place in our lives, and to recognize in this instinct a power which seeks expression and evidently may not be trifled with, and therefore cannot be made to fit in with our well-meaning moral laws.”

§131 “The psychological “transcendent function” arises from the union of conscious and unconscious contents.”

§132 “… the conscious and the unconscious seldom agree as to their contents and their tendencies. This lack of parallelism is not just accidental or purposeless, but is due to the fact that the unconscious behaves in a compensatory or complementary manner towards the conscious.” (Very interesting I think that Jung uses the word 'parallelism' here, parallel means two lines, two journeys, different sets of resources even…two people walking in the same direction, side by side. It does not suggest the same line…interesting I think, it is pointed that he used that word.)
“The reasons for this relationship are:
(1) Consciousness possesses a (Energy) threshold intensity which its contents must have attained, so that all elements that are too weak remain in the unconscious.
(2) Consciousness, because of its directed functions, exercises an inhibition…
(3) Consciousness constitutes the momentary process of adaptation, …
(4) The Unconscious contains all the fantasy combinations which have not yet attained the threshold intensity, …”

§134 “The definiteness and directedness of the conscious mind are qualities that have been acquired relatively late in the history of the human race, … ”

§135 “The definiteness and directedness of the conscious mind are extremely important acquisitions which humanity has brought at a very heavy sacrifice, and which in turn have rendered humanity the highest service. … We may say in general that social worthlessness increases to the degree that these qualities are impaired by the unconscious. (Haha…'social worthlessness'. Can you still say that today?) Great artists and others distinguished by creative gifts are, of course, exceptions to this rule. … ”

§136 “ …the psychic process should be as stable and definite as possible, … But this involves a certain disadvantage: the quality of directedness makes for the inhibition or exclusion of all those psychic elements which appear (As he points out later on, there is judgement here…as we chose based on how they 'appear'. Also, our judgement cannot yet include unconscious contents as they are - at the risk of stating the obvious - unconscious, not yet known to us.) to be, or really are, incompatible with it, …”

§137 “Through such acts of judgment the directed process necessarily becomes one-sided, …“
§138 “One-sidedness is an unavoidable and necessary characteristic of the directed process, for direction implies one-sidedness. It is an advantage and a drawback at the same time. … unless it happens to be the ideal case where all the psychic components are tending in one and the same direction. This possibility cannot be disputed in theory, but in practice it very rarely happens. The counter-position in the unconscious is not dangerous so long as it does not possess any high energy-value.”

§139 ”… The further we are able to remove ourselves from the unconscious through directed functioning, the more readily a powerful counter-position can build up in the unconscious, …”

§140 - 141 Briefly discussing the idea of analysis and the importance of understanding the unconscious content in analysis. A hang up from times past had analysis providing a 'cure'….in reality, it is always ongoing and the unconscious continues - mutatis mutandis to intrude, compensate and complement the conscious directedness. This all includes - of course - the vicissitudes of life and the problems that arise from having to live ones own life as well as be part of the collective community.
§142 “ … Life has always to be tackled anew. There are, of course, extremely durable collective attitudes which permit the solution of typical conflicts. A collective attitude enable the individual to fit into society without friction, … But the patient's difficulty consists precisely in the fact that his individual problem cannot be fitted without friction into a collective norm; it requires the solution of an individual conflict if the whole of his personality is to remain viable. No rational solution can do justice to this task, and there is absolutely no collective norm that could replace an individual solution without loss .” (Emphasis mine) I think this is interesting. Where the collective attitude or solution may be something like religion, what Jung is saying here is that always, the approach must be personal if we are to remain whole, or if we are to emerge into consciousness - there is the argument I guess that we may be happy to live as one of the collective, a participation mystique in some ways where we do not have our own 'viable personality' but rather we are one of the collective.

§143 “Man needs difficulties; they are necessary for health. What concerns us here is only an excessive amount of them.”

back to top

§144 “The basic question for the therapist is not how to get rid of the momentary difficulty, but how future difficulties may be successfully countered. … and how can it be conveyed to the patient?”
§145 “The answer obviously consists in getting rid of the separation between conscious and unconscious. … The tendencies of the conscious and the unconscious are the two factors that together make up the transcendent function. It is called “transcendent” because it makes the transition from one attitude to another organically possible, without loss of the unconscious. ” (Emphasis mine) Haha!…the implication here is that the attitude transition occurs from the unconscious the the conscious, making the unconscious attitude the 'right one' :) “The constructive or synthetic method of treatment presupposes insights which are at least potentially present in the patient and can therefore be made conscious. …”

§146 “… the suitably trained analyst mediates the transcendent function for the patient, i.e., helps him to bring conscious and unconscious together and so arrive at a new attitude. In this function of the analyst lies one of the many important meanings of the transference. … The understanding of the transference is to be sought not in its historical antecedents (In things like infantile eros, sexuality or in a concretistic- reductive sense.) but in its purpose. … ” Important to read on further here…understanding of the transference in a Constructive sense.

back to top

§198 “In the realm of psychophysiological processes for instance, sense perceptions or motor reactions, where the purpose of the experiment is obviously harmless-pure reflex mechanisms predominate, and there are few if any assimilations, so that the experiment is not appreciably disturbed. It is very different in the realm of complicated psychic processes, where the experimental procedure cannot be restricted to certain definite possibilities. Here, where the safeguards afforded by specific aims fall away, unlimited possibilities emerge, and these sometimes give rise right at the beginning to an experimental situation which we call a “constellation. … the constellation is an automatic process which happens involuntarily and which no one can stop of his own accord. The constellated contents are definite complexes possessing their own specific energy.” Emphasis mine

§201 “Everyone knows nowadays that people “have complexes.” What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us. The existence of complexes throws serious doubt on the naive assumption of the unity of consciousness, which is equated with “psyche,” and on the supremacy of the will. …
What then, scientifically speaking, is a “feeling-toned complex”? It is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.” Emphasis mine

§202 “Personality fragments undoubtedly have their own consciousness, but whether such small psychic fragments as complexes are also capable of a consciousness of their own is a still unanswered question. I must confess that this question has often occupied my thoughts, for complexes behave like Descartes' devils and seem to delight in playing impish tricks.”

§203 ” …the more clearly do they reveal their character as splinter psyches.“

§204 Today we can take it as moderately certain that complexes are in fact “splinter psyches.” The aetiology of their origin is frequently a so-called trauma, an emotional shock or some such thing, that splits off a bit of the psyche. Certainly one of the commonest causes is a moral conflict, which ultimately derives from the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one's nature. This impossibility presupposes a direct split, no matter whether the conscious mind is aware of it or not.” xRef the 'dissociability' of the psyche

§207 “It is not immediately apparent that fear could be the motive which prompts consciousness to explain complexes as its own activity. … But we are only too ready to make anything unpleasant unreal - so long as we possibly can. The outbreak of neurosis signalizes the moment when this can no longer be done by the primitive magical means of apotropaic gestures and euphemisms. From this moment the complex establishes itself on the conscious surface; it can no longer be circumvented and proceeds to assimilate the ego-consciousness step by step, just as, previously, the ego-consciousness tried to assimilate it. This eventually leads to a neurotic dissociation of the personality.”

§210 “The universal belief in spirits is a direct expression of the complex structure of the unconscious. Complexes are in truth the living units of the unconscious psyche, and it is only through them that we are able to deduce its existence and its constitution….
The via regia to the unconscious, however, is not the dream, as he (Freud) thought, but the complex, which is the architect of dreams and of symptoms.”
xRef CW7, para. 437

§213 “ … Herein lies. the unavoidable limitation of psychological observation: its validity is contingent upon the personal equation of the observer.”

§215 “For, with the discovery of incompatible tendencies, only one sector of the unconscious has come under review, and only one source of fear has been revealed.” I'm not quote sure what this 'one' is …is it the 'complex psychology', this one aspect of psychology?

§216 “… the numinosum, to use an apt expression of Rudolf Otto's. Where the realm of complexes begins the freedom of the ego comes to an end, for complexes are psychic agencies whose deepest nature is still unfathomed.”

§219 “I must refrain, however, from filling in this incomplete picture by a description of the problems arising out of the existence of autonomous complexes. Three important problems would have to be dealt with: the therapeutic, the philosophical, and the moral. All three still await discussion.”

back to top

back to top

§344 Speaking of the historical precedent in how things were viewed; “Naturally it never occurred to the representatives of the old view that their doctrines were nothing but psychic phenomena, for it was naïvely assumed that with the help of intelligence or reason man could, as it were, climb out of his psychic condition and remove himself to one that was suprapsychic and rational.” I put this quote down as it is important I think to appreciate the view here that Jung is driving home in this para and the previous one; that the experience to then of what man understood about soul and psyche was psychic, it was not objective, but all subjective! Whats more, how can it be any different.
Speaking of becoming more conscious; “…for the empirical freedom of the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.” Cf. this with the definition of will in CW6. It is 'disposable energy, or libido available to consciousness.'
“…for the empirical freedom of the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.”

§345 “As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the objective validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at least in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact.” Emphasis mine
“…the seventeenth century …psychology began to rise up by the side of philosophy, and it was Christian von Wolf (1679-1754) who was the first to speak of “empirical” or “experimental” psychology,⁴… Psychology had to forgo the philosopher's rational definition of truth, because it gradually became clear that no philosophy had sufficient general validity to be uniformly fair to the diversity of individual subjects. (This is important; philosophy as a general collective explanation as presented by the seminal thinkers of their epoch could no longer be applied in a collective sense. As consciousness grew in the 17th century so too did the emancipation from collectiveness. With this came this came the realisation that a psychological perspective is needed.) … it naturally became necessary to abandon philosophical argument and to replace it by experience. Psychology thereupon turned into a natural science.” (Emphasis mine. This is the reason psychology has replaced or at least come alongside philosophy in determining collective and individual perspectives and principles.)
⁴ _{Psychologia empirica (1732)}

Para's 343 to 347 are on the historical setting and evolution of psychology as science. From para 348 onwards now it seems to turn towards the topic of the unconscious.

§347 “The position of psychology is comparable with that of a psychic function which is inhibited by the conscious mind: only such components of it are admitted to exist as accord with the prevailing trend of consciousness. Whatever fails to accord is actually denied existence, …” (This bit is less about the fact the sentence subject is psychology and more the behaviour of denying admittance to content that is not inline with prevailing collective consciousness.)

§348-349 Wundt really doesn't think much of the unconscious content.

§350 J. F. Herbart, Ideas and representations

The motif of an unconscious subject, or representation

§352 “Here I must anticipate a point with which I shall be dealing at some length later on, namely the fact that something very like “representedness” or consciousness does attach to unconscious contents, so that the possibility of an unconscious subject becomes a serious question. Such a subject, however, is not identical with the ego. …” Emphasis mine - 'unconscious subject' - xRef para 369 & 439.
I feel this footnote is important as it introduces the concept of the conscious <> unconscious threshold, and 'representation'. xRef with footnote 18. Also, xRef para 362
¹¹ _{Gustav Theodor Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, II, p. 438: “… the idea of a psychophysical threshold…gives a firm foundation to that of the unconscious generally. …}

§352-353 Jung discussing Wundt's ideas and Wundt's rejection of the unconscious
§354-355 Jung acknowledging Fechner and Theodor Lipps' insight into the concept of the unconscious.

§355 “Theodor Lipps' remarks … form the theoretical basis for the psychology of the unconscious in general.”

back to top

Footnote 23, and xRef footnote 47; Jung mentions William James' comments on the 'discovery' of the unconscious in 1886 by Frederic W. H. Myers.

Jung using the word soul here in relation to the unconscious. xRef with his definition of soul and soul images in CW6.

§356 “The hypotheses of the unconscious puts a large question-mark after the idea of the psyche. The soul, as hitherto postulated by the philosophical intellect and equipped with the necessary faculties, threatened to emerge from its chrysalis as something with unexpected and uninvestigated properties. … So it is with psychology: if the soul is really only an idea, this idea has an alarming air of unpredictability about it - something with qualities no one would ever have imagined.”
Note Jung's example with numbers. I like it when he uses numbers to illustrate or show an analogy of the concept.
RE soul, it seems the reason Jung uses the concept of soul here is in keeping with the previous discussions of philosophy and the hitherto attitude of 'knowing' all that there is to know about the soul. Only now, as a concept if we acknowledge the psychological implications of an unconscious…then we can no longer believe we know everything there is to know, i.e., what is conscious.

§357 “All the same, every science is a function of the psyche, and all knowledge is rooted in it. The psyche is the greatest of all cosmic wonders and the sine qua non of the world as an object.(i.e., the world would not exist as on object if the psyche wasn't there to observer it, to make it conscious. I think? comments welcome). … Swamped by the knowledge of external objects, the subject of all knowledge has been temporarily eclipsed to the point of seeming non-existence.”

§358 ”…if the subject of knowledge, the psyche, were in fact a veiled form of existence not immediately accessible to consciousness, then all our knowledge must be incomplete, … “

§359 “Epistemological criticism was on the one hand an expression of the modesty of medieval man, and on the other a renunciation of, or abdication from, the spirit of God, and consequently a modern extension and reinforcement of human consciousness within the limits of reason. Wherever the spirit of God is extruded from our human calculations, an unconscious substitute takes its place. …” Worth reading the rest of the para.

I really like this next comment as I think it sums up so much of what the 'human spirit' - in a colloquial sense - is; we cannot help ourselves. Whatever is 'reasoned' out or put forward, no matter how noble or well intended, no matter how embracing, encompassing we hope it will be, it is at the end of the day all we can do just to keep it 'human' and hopefully not to subjective. Although, ultimately, what ever we attempt to know beyond the subjective is always going to be tainted - anthropomorphised…it can't be anything else. Hence the greatest journey is subjective, and then we can only hope to try share it…but it will always by subjective first.
§360 “I think it is obvious that all philosophical statements which transgress the bounds of reason are anthropomorphic and have no validity beyond that which falls to psychically conditioned statements. …”

Jung then goes on the lambaste Hegel.

The hypothesis of the 'threshold.'

§361 ”…by trying to construct a world-picture that included the dark part of the soul. The structure (The philosophical and in part psychological view) still lacked something whose unprecedented importance I would like to bring home to the reader.“
§362 “For this purpose we must frist make it quite clear to ourselves that all knowledge is the result of imposing some kind of order upon the reactions of the psychic system as they flow into our consciousness - an order which reflects the behaviour of a meta-psychic reality, of that which is in itself real.” Emphasis mine. Cf. para 370. He goes on,
“If … the psychic system coincides and is identical with our conscious mind, then, in principle, we are in a position to know everything that is capable of being known…
But should it turn out that the psyche does not coincide with consciousness, and, what is more, that it functions unconsciously in a way similar to, or different from, the conscious portion of it, … then it is no longer a question of general epistemological limits, but of a flimsy threshold that separates us from the unconscious contents of the psyche. …
We have no knowledge of how this unconscious functions, but since it is conjectured to be a psychic system it may possibly have everything that consciousness has, including perception, apperception, memory, imagination, will, affectivity, feeling, reflection, judgment, etc., all in subliminal form.²⁵“
If knowledge lies within consciousness, then the only thing we should really worry about is our senses and how to expand their fov and epistemological investigation. But if we acknowledge there is more to our potential than what we can attain in consciousness, namely, unconscious content…then we must wonder. Moreover, he continues with the discussion of the threshold now between the conscious and the unconscious. See footnote 25 for a mention / definition of sentience in the context of this discussion, i.e., is the unconscious 'sentient'.

§363 Two arguments presented against the sentient hypothesis;
(1) Jung brings in arguments from Wundt, that none of these 'volitional' - i.e., sentient - acts ”… can be represented without an experiencing subject.”
(2) Threshold and energy - “Moreover, the idea of a threshold presupposes a mode of observation in terms of energy, according to which consciousness of psychic contents is essentially dependent upon their intensity, that is, their energy.”
I feel like he's mixing arguments here a bit by including what seems to be now a full 'theory' of consciousness related to threshold. Previously, the threshold under discussion was that liminal space between our unconscious and ego-consciousness. Under the lens now is the postulation of an 'unconscious consciousness', a consciousness like our ego-consciousness but in the unconscious. Therefore, a completely different consciousness. So he's comparing two different aspects of the model incorrectly I think. Or in other words, it is another threshold somewhere?

§364 Drawing on Lipps' arguments he refutes (1). “This view does not square with common experience, which speaks in favour of a possible psychic activity without consciousness.”
I think (2) is considered in the next section.

back to top

§365 “There is no a priori reason for assuming that unconscious processes must inevitably have a subject, any more than there is for doubting the reality of psychic processes. Admittedly the problem becomes difficult when we suppose unconscious acts of will. If this is not to be just a matter of “instincts” and “inclinations,” but rather of considered “choice” and “decision” which are peculiar to the will, then one cannot very well get round the need for a controlling subject to whom something is “represented.” But that, by definition, would be to lodge a consciousness in the unconscious, … the psychic phenomenon …the dissociation or dissociability of the psyche. ” (Emphasis mine)

§366 “The dissociability also enables us to set aside the difficulties that flow from the logically necessary assumption of a threshold of consciousness. …if unconscious acts of volition are to be possible, if follows that these must posses an energy which enables them to achieve consciousness, or at any rate to achieve a state of secondary consciousness which consists in the unconscious process being “represented” to a subliminal subject who chooses and decides.” Emphasis mine…in particular this idea of the secondary consciousness. An ex hypothesi factor. ”… why the unconscious process (Which at some point has the energy to cross the threshold) does not go right over the threshold and become perceptible to the ego. … we must now explain why this subject, which is ex hypothesi charged with sufficient energy to become conscious, does not in its turn push over the threshold and articulate with the primary ego-consciousness….
This secondary consciousness represents a personality-component which has not been separated from ego-consciousness by mere accident, but which owes its separation to definite causes. Such a dissociation has two distinct aspects:
(1) there is an originally conscious content that became subliminal because it was repressed on account of its incompatible nature
(2) the secondary subject consists essentially in a process that never entered into consciousness at all because no possibilities exist there of apperceiving it. …
Yet because there is in both cases sufficient energy to make it potentially conscious, the secondary subject does in fact have an effect upon ego-consciousness - indirectly or, as we say, “symbolically,” …
The point is that the contents that appear in consciousness are at first symptomatic. In so far as we know, or think we know, what they refer to or are based on, they are semiotic, … The symptomatic contents are in part truly symbolic, being the indirect representatives of unconscious states or processes whose nature can be only imperfectly inferred and realized from the contents that appear in consciousness. It is therefore possible that the unconscious harbours contents so powered with energy that under other conditions they would be bound to become perceptible to the ego.
In the majority of cases they are not repressed contents, but simply contents that are not yet conscious … This state is neither pathological nor in any way peculiar …“

§367 Jung mentions Psychoid processes. Discussing the senses, “This analogy makes it conceivable that there is a lower as well as an upper threshold for psychic events, and that consciousness, the perceptual system par excellence, may therefore be compared with the perceptible scale of sound or light, having like them a lower and upper limit.”

Using Jung's comparison of our sense organs that have an upper and lower limit like the ear, or the eye - imagine there was a 'consciousness organ' responsible for perceiving psychic events and able to make them conscious, i.e., heard for sound, or seen for light. The model might look like this:

The justification for a 'consciousness organ' apart from the ego is that there can be conscious content, i.e., content readily available in a conscious state that ego-consciousness is not aware of. The discussion of conscious as a 'state' could be brought in here. xRef the end of para 369, and CW8, para 413
The visible light spectrum with it's upper and lower bounds is shown below.

§368 “It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to think of a psychic function as independent of its organ, although in actual fact we experience the psychic process apart from its relation to the organic substrate. For the psychologist, however, it is the totality of these experiences that constitutes the object of investigation, and for this reason he must abjure a terminology borrowed from the anatomist. If I make use of the term ” psychoid ”³⁴ I do so with three reservations:
firstly, I use it as an adjective, not as a noun;
secondly, no psychic quality …is implied, …
and thirdly, it is meant to distinguish a category of events from merely vitalistic phenomena on the one hand and from specifically psychic processes on the other.“

§369 Jung picks up here now where he left off at the end of para 362; the point of their being a 'sentient' or subjective element in the unconscious.
“If the unconscious can contain everything that is known to be a function of consciousness, then we are faced with the possibility that it too, like consciousness, possesses a subject, a sort of ego. (Emphasis mine)…
…the real point of my argument: the fact, namely, that a second psychic system coexisting with consciousness - no matter what qualities we suspect it of possessing - is of absolutely revolutionary significance in that it could radically alter our view of the world.”

§370 ”… for if we effect so radical an alteration in the subject of perception and cognition (i.e., us) as this dual focus implies, the result must be a world view very different from any known before. This holds true only if the hypothesis of the unconscious holds true, …“

With all this hypothesising I feel it useful to highlight the title of this essay, 'On the nature of the psyche' …emphasis mine. It's almost like Jung's caveat for the term psychoid in that he uses is as an adjective. The nature of the psyche, of the unconscious is that it behaves as though it were sentient (adjective) in nature.

back to top

Jung makes some notes on how the unconscious was perceived or considered with pioneers like Pierre Janet and Freud. He also mentions Myers in footnote 38. A prevailing view starting with Freud:
§373 ”… led to the interpretation of the unconscious as a phenomenon of repression which could be understood in personalistic terms. Its contents were lost elements that had once been conscious. … On this view the unconscious psyche appears as a subliminal appendix to the conscious mind.“

The motif of will over instinct
§374 “But the theory of human instincts finds itself in a rather delicate situation, because it is uncommonly difficult not only to define the instincts conceptually, but even to establish their number and their limitations.³⁹ … All that can be ascertained with any certainty is that the instincts have a physiological and a psychological aspect.⁴⁰ Of great use for descriptive purposes is Pierre Janet's view of the “partie supérieure et inférieure d'une fonction.”” (“the top limit/part and bottom limit/part of the function”)
³⁹_{This indistinctness and blurring of the instincts may, as E. N. Marais has shown in his experiments with apes (The Soul of the White Ant, p. 429), have something to do with the superior learning-capacity prevailing over the instincts, as is obviously the case with man too. …}

§375 “The fact that all the psychic processes accessible to our observation and experience are somehow bound to an organic substrate indicates that they are articulated with the life of the organism as a whole and therefore partake of its dynamism…
The psyche as such cannot be explained in terms of physiological chemistry, if only because, together with “life” itself, it is the only “natural factor” capable of converting statistical organizations which are subject to natural law into “higher” or “unnatural” states, in opposition to the rule of entropy that runs throughout the inorganic realm. … Life therefore has a specific law of its own which cannot be deduced from the known physical laws of nature. Even so, the psyche is to some extent dependent upon processes in the organic substrate. …
The instinctual base governs the partie inférieure of the function, while the partie supérieure corresponds to its predominantly “psychic” component. The partie inférieure proves to be relatively unalterable, automatic part of the function, and the partie supérieure the voluntary and alterable part.⁴²” (Emphasis mine) Not that Jung is not strictly speaking aligning the instincts with the lower limits of the psyche. He is very careful to describe the lower limit as being 'governed' by the instinctual base. The instincts exist in an of themselves and seem quite unknowable, xRef end of para 374. It's easy to read this and place place the instincts at the lower boundary of the psyche. In actual fact, Jung is using the instincts to describe the lower boundary of the psyche, to describe the lower boundary. He is not defining the instincts.

§376 “The question now arises: when are we entitled to speak of “psychic” and how in general do we define the “psychic” as distinct from the “physiological”? …
Its functioning (The partie inférieure aspect, the instincts) has a compulsive character: hence the designation “drive.” Rivers asserts that the “all-or-none reaction”⁴³ is natural to it, i.e., the function acts altogether or not at all, which is specific of compulsion. On the other hand the partie supérieure, which is best described as psychic and is moreover sensed as such, has lost its compulsive character, can be subjected to the will⁴⁴ and even applied in a manner contrary to the original instinct.”
⁴³_{W H. R. Rivers, “Instinct and the Unconscious.”}

§377 “From these reflection it appears that the psychic is an emancipation of function from its instinctual form and so from the compulsiveness which, as sole determinant of the function, causes it to harden into a mechanism. The psychic condition or quality begins where the function loses its outer and inner determinism and becomes capable of more extensive and freer application, that is, where it begins to show itself accessible to a will motivated from other sources. …
The meaning or purpose of the instinct is not unambiguous, as the instinct may easily mask a sense of direction other than biological, which only becomes apparent in the course of development.” This last bit is confusing - how may the instinct be other than biological. This must mean instinct is not in and of itself biological? Otherwise, why would it attain to something 'other than biological'?

§378 ”…the system of instincts is not truly harmonious in composition and is exposed to numerous internal collisions.“
The tone in this paragraph is that the instincts are not in themselves, in their compulsion without conflict. The instinctual systems is not collaborative.
“Differentiation of function from compulsive instinctuality, and its voluntary application, are of paramount importance in the maintenance of life.”
How does this relate to nature where life thrives and is very much instinctually based.

The matter of will over instinct.
§379 ”“Will” implies a certain amount of energy freely disposable by the psyche. There must be such amounts of disposable libido (or energy), or modifications of the functions would be impossible, since the latter would then be chained to the instincts - which are in themselves extremely conservative and correspondingly unalterable - so exclusively that no variation could take place, unless it were organic variations. …
Through having its form altered, the function is pressed into the service of other determinants or motivations, which apparently have nothing further to do with the instincts. What I am trying to make clear is the remarkable fact that the will cannot transgress the bounds of the psychic sphere: it cannot coerce the instinct, nor has it power over the spirit, in so far as we understand by this something more than the intellect. Spirit and instinct are by nature autonomous and both limit in equal measure the applied field of the will. …“ (Emphasis mine)

§380 “Just as, in its lower reaches, the psyche loses itself in the organic-material substrate, so in its upper reaches it resolves itself into a “spiritual” form about which we know as little as we do about the functional basis of instinct.” xRef para 375 notes
“Pure instinctuality allows no consciousness to be conjectured and needs none. But because of its empirical freedom of choice, the will needs a supraordinate authority, something like a consciousness of itself, in order to modify the function. It must “know” of a goal different from the goal of the function. … Volition presupposes a choosing subject who envisages different possibilities. Looked at from this able, psyche is essentially conflict between blind instinct and will (freedom of choice). Where instinct predominates, psychoid processes set in which pertain to the sphere of the unconscious as elements incapable of consciousness. .. Apart from psychoid processes, there are in the unconscious ideas and volitional acts, hence something akin to conscious processes;⁴⁶ …”

back to top

back to top

Σ §388 “These formae⁶¹ correspond to the Platonic Ideas, from which one could equate the scintillae with the archetypes on the assumption that the Forms “stored up in a supracelestial place” are a philosophical version of the latter.”
Jung quoting from Ignatius of Antioch in a letter to the Ephesians:
“How, then, was he manifested to the world? A star shone in heaven beyond the stars, and its light was unspeakable, and its newness caused astonishment, and all the other stars, with the sun and moon, gathered in chorus round this star…”.
Jung goes on to say of this scintilla, the Lumen naturae,
“Pscychologically, the One Scintilla or Monad is to be regarded as a symbol of the self.”
⁵⁹_{As synonyms, Khnnrath mentions (p. 216) “forma aquina, pontica, limns terrae Adamae, Azoth, Mercurius” (a form watery and sea-like, the slime of the earth of Adama, etc.). [Adama is Hebrew for 'earth.' - EDITORS]}
⁶¹_{The “formae scintillaeve Animae Mundi” (forms or sparks of the world soul) are also called by Khunrath (p. 189) “rationes seminariae Naturae specificae” (the seed-ideas of Nature, the origin of species), thus reproducing an ancient idea. In the same way he calls the scintilla ” Entelechia “(p.65).}
Entelechia = Entelechy = Energy with purpose, more psychoid based.
Teleology = Ideas with purpose, more psychic based.

§390 “In Paracelsus the lumen naturae comes primarily for the “astrum” or “sydus,” the “star” in man.”

§392 “It strikes me as significant, particularly in regard to our hypothesis of a multiple consciousness and its phenomena, that the characteristic alchemical vision of the sparks scintillating in the blackness of the arcane substance should, for Paracelsus, change into the spectacle of the “interior firmament” and its stars. He beholds the darksome psyche as a star-strewn night sky, whose planets and fixed constellations represent the archetypes in all their luminosity and numinosity. The starry vault of heaven is in truth the open book of cosmic projection, in which are reflected the mythologems, i.e., the archetypes. In this vision astrology and alchemy, the two classical functionaries of the psychology of the collective unconscious, join hands.”

** §401 …something about the results of active imagination…

§410 “Confrontation with an archetype or instinct is an ethical problem of the first magnitude, …”

Ω §429 “It is, in fact, the coming to consciousness of the psychic process, but it is not, in the deeper sense, an explanation of this process, for no explanation of the psychic can be anything other than the living process of the psyche itself. Psychology is doomed to cancel itself out as a science and therein precisely it reaches its scientific goal.” I like this quote for the particular bit about the fact that there can be no explanation 'other than the living process of the psyche itself' …this makes me think of the extreme sport examples where the sporting endeavour is itself the symbol - a depiction of the process.

§465 “Now whether this dream should be considered meaningful or meaningless depends on a very important question, namely, whether the standpoint of morality, handed down through the ages, is itself meaningful or meaningless. I do not wish to wander off into a philosophical discussion of this question, but would merely observe that mankind must obviously have had very strong reasons for devising this morality, for otherwise it would be truly incomprehensible why such restraints should be imposed on one of man's strongest desires. If we give this fact its due, we are bound to pronounce the dream to be meaningful, because it shows the young man the necessity of looking at his erotic conduct for once from the standpoint of morality. Primitive tribes have in some respects extremely strict laws concerning sexuality. This proves that sexual morality is a not-to·be-neglected factor in the higher functions of the psyche and deserves to be taken fully into account. In the case in question we should have to say that the young man, hypnotized by his friends' example, has somewhat thoughtlessly given way to his erotic desires, unmindful of the fact that man is a morally responsible being who, voluntarily or involuntarily, submits to the morality that he himself has created.”

The Language of dreams
§474-475 “It is characteristic that a dream never expresses itself in a logically abstract way, but always in the language of parable or simile. This peculiarity is also a characteristic feature of primitive languages. . . . Just as the body bears traces of its phylogenetic development, so also does the human mind. Hence there is nothing surprising about the possibility that the figurative language of dreams is a survival from an archaic mode of thought.”

This is very interesting as it speaks to the topic of mythological content appearing in dreams spontaneously, without the dreamer having any knowledge of the mythological content. Jung does talk about this elsewhere. The example of the phallus on the sun disk for example in his schizophrenic patient I think it was. This idea that such an archaic motif and symbol (image) may appear spontaneously from the unconscious without the dreamer having any prior knowledge of such content.
§554 “It is worth noting that the dreamer does not need to have any inkling of the existence of such parallels. This peculiarity is characteristic of dreams of the individuation process, where we find the mythological motifs or mythologems I have designated as archetypes. These are to be understood as specific forms and groups of images which occur not only at all times and in all places but also in individual dreams, fantasies, visions, and delusional ideas. Their frequent appearance in indivi'dual case material, as well as their universal distribution, prove that the human psyche is unique and subjective or personal only in part, and for the rest is collective and objective.⁶“
⁶_{Cf. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, I. chs. V-VII.}

§555 ”…because it has been overlooked subjectively, forces itself objectively upon the dreamer's consciousness.⁷“
⁷_{Cf. my and C. Kerenyi's Essays on (or Introduction to) a Science of Mythology. [Also, Symbols of Transformation, pars. 572ff., 577ff.]}

§559 the stag

back to top

§580 “A dream is a psychic product originating in the sleeping state without conscious motivation. In a dream, consciousness is not completely extinguished; there is always a small remnant left. In most dreams, for instance, there is still some consciousness of the ego, although it is a very limited and curiously distorted ego known as the dream-ego. It is a mere fragment or shadow of the waking ego. Consciousness exists only when psychic contents are associated with the ego, … We do not feel as if we were producing the dreams, it is rather as if the dreams came to us. They are not subject to our control but obey their own laws. They are obviously autonomous psychic complexes which form themselves out of their own material.”

§582 “Common to all three types of phenomena is the fact that the psyche is not an indivisible unity but a divisible and more or less divided whole. Although the separate parts are connected with one another, they are relatively independent, so much so that certain parts of the psyche never become associated with the ego at all, or only very rarely. I have called these psychic fragments “autonomous complexes,” and I based my theory of complexes on their existence.⁴ According to this theory the ego complex forms the centre characteristic of our psyche. But it is only one among several complexes. The others are more often than not associated with the ego-complex and in this way become conscious, but they can also exist for some time without being associated with it. An excellent and very well known example of this is the conversion of St. Paul.”
⁴_{Cf. supra, ”A Review of the Complex Theory.”}

back to top

§611 “Consciousness can therefore be understood as a state of association with the ego. But the critical point is the ego. What do we mean by the ego? For all its appearance of unity, it is obviously a highly composite factor. It is made up of images recorded from the sense-functions that transmit stimuli both from within and from without, and furthermore of an immense accumulation of images of past processes. All these multifarious components need a powerful cohesive force to hold them together, and this we have already recognized as a property of consciousness. Consciousness therefore seems to be the necessary precondition for the ego. Yet without the ego, consciousness is unthinkable. This apparent contradiction may perhaps be resolved by regarding the ego, too - as a reflection not of one but of very many processes and their interplay - in fact, of all those processes and contents that make up ego-consciousness. Their diversity does indeed form a unity, because their relation to consciousness acts as a sort of gravitational force drawing the various parts together, towards what might be called a virtual centre. For this reason I do not speak simply of the ego, but of an ego-complex, on the proven assumption that the ego, having a fluctuating composition, is changeable and therefore cannot be simply the ego.”