| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| aker:collected_works:cw9ii [2015/10/18 18:39] – janus | collected_works:cw9ii [2017/02/14 04:18] – ↷ Page moved from aker:collected_works:cw9ii to collected_works:cw9ii janus |
|---|
| [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §2 "With this definition we have described and delimited the **//scope//** of the subject. <fc green>(Emphasis mine - I think it important to grasp the work 'scope' in this context...much of consciousness is discussed in terms of scope and the potential of what may become conscious, i.e., what may come into scope.)</fc>\\ Empirically, however, it always finds its limit when it comes up against the //unknown//. \\ The unknown falls into two groups of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by the senses, and those which are inside and are experienced immediately. The first group comprises the unknown in the outer world; the second the unknown in the inner world. We call this latter territory the unconscious." | [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §2 "With this definition we have described and delimited the **//scope//** of the subject. <fc green>(Emphasis mine - I think it important to grasp the work 'scope' in this context...much of consciousness is discussed in terms of scope and the potential of what may become conscious, i.e., what may come into scope.)</fc>\\ Empirically, however, it always finds its limit when it comes up against the //unknown//. \\ The unknown falls into two groups of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by the senses, and those which are inside and are experienced immediately. The first group comprises the unknown in the outer world; the second the unknown in the inner world. We call this latter territory the unconscious." |
| |
| [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §3 "The ego, as a specific content of consciousness, is not a simple or elementary factor but a complex one which, as such, cannot be described exhaustively. Experience shows that it rests on two seemingly different bases: the somatic and the psychic. The somatic basis is inferred from the totality of endosomatic perceptions, which for their part are already of a psychic nature and are associated with the ego, and are therefore conscious. They are produced by endosomatic stimuli, only some of which cross the threshold of consciousness. A considerable proportion of these stimuli occur unconsciously, that is, subliminally. ... Sometimes they are capable of crossing the threshold, that is, of becoming perceptions. But there is no doubt that a large proportion of these endosomatic stimuli are simply incapable of consciousness and are so elementary that there is no reason to assign them a psychic nature - ... \\ I have therefore suggested that the term "**//psychic//**" be used only where there is evidence of a will capable of modifying reflex or instinctual processes. Here I must refer the reader to my paper "[[aker:collected_works:cw8|On the Nature of the Psyche]],"<fc red><sup>1</sup></fc> where I have discussed this definition of the "psychic" at somewhat greater length."\\ <fc red><sup>1</sup></fc><sub>Pars. 371ff.</sub> \\ <fc green>Emphasis mine. It's important here to note how Jung is using the word 'psychic'. It is used like an adjective similar to how he uses the word 'psychoid' in the same essay; //On the Nature of the Psyche//. Clearly he uses psyche and psychic in more expansive contexts elsewhere but this using of words as adjectives is an important part of how Jung describes things and doesn't label them.</fc> | [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §3 "The ego, as a specific content of consciousness, is not a simple or elementary factor but a complex one which, as such, cannot be described exhaustively. Experience shows that it rests on two seemingly different bases: the somatic and the psychic. The somatic basis is inferred from the totality of endosomatic perceptions, which for their part are already of a psychic nature and are associated with the ego, and are therefore conscious. They are produced by endosomatic stimuli, only some of which cross the threshold of consciousness. A considerable proportion of these stimuli occur unconsciously, that is, subliminally. ... Sometimes they are capable of crossing the threshold, that is, of becoming perceptions. But there is no doubt that a large proportion of these endosomatic stimuli are simply incapable of consciousness and are so elementary that there is no reason to assign them a psychic nature - ... \\ I have therefore suggested that the term "**//psychic//**" be used only where there is evidence of a will capable of modifying reflex or instinctual processes. Here I must refer the reader to my paper "[[collected_works:cw8|On the Nature of the Psyche]],"<fc red><sup>1</sup></fc> where I have discussed this definition of the "psychic" at somewhat greater length."\\ <fc red><sup>1</sup></fc><sub>Pars. 371ff.</sub> \\ <fc green>Emphasis mine. It's important here to note how Jung is using the word 'psychic'. It is used like an adjective similar to how he uses the word 'psychoid' in the same essay; //On the Nature of the Psyche//. Clearly he uses psyche and psychic in more expansive contexts elsewhere but this using of words as adjectives is an important part of how Jung describes things and doesn't label them.</fc> |
| |
| [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §4 "The **somatic basis** of the ego consists, then, of conscious and unconscious factors. \\ The same is true of the **psychic basis** <fc green>(note the way Jung means psychic, xRef para.3 above)</fc>: on the one hand the ego rests on the //total field of consciousness//, and on the other, on the //sum total of unconscious contents//. These fall into three groups: \\ <fc green>[1]</fc> first, temporarily subliminal con- tents that can be reproduced voluntarily (memory); \\ <fc green>[2]</fc> second, unconscious contents that cannot be reproduced voluntarily; \\ <fc green>[3]</fc> third, contents that are not capable of becoming conscious at all." | [[aker:space_and_time|τ]] §4 "The **somatic basis** of the ego consists, then, of conscious and unconscious factors. \\ The same is true of the **psychic basis** <fc green>(note the way Jung means psychic, xRef para.3 above)</fc>: on the one hand the ego rests on the //total field of consciousness//, and on the other, on the //sum total of unconscious contents//. These fall into three groups: \\ <fc green>[1]</fc> first, temporarily subliminal con- tents that can be reproduced voluntarily (memory); \\ <fc green>[2]</fc> second, unconscious contents that cannot be reproduced voluntarily; \\ <fc green>[3]</fc> third, contents that are not capable of becoming conscious at all." |
| §26 "The projection-making factor is the anima, or rather the unconscious as represented by the anima. ... She is not an invention of the conscious, but a spontaneous product of the unconscious. Nor is she a substitute figure for the mother. On the contrary, there is every likelihood that the numinous qualities which make the mother-imago so dangerously powerful derive from the collective archetype of the anima, which is incarnated anew in every male child." | §26 "The projection-making factor is the anima, or rather the unconscious as represented by the anima. ... She is not an invention of the conscious, but a spontaneous product of the unconscious. Nor is she a substitute figure for the mother. On the contrary, there is every likelihood that the numinous qualities which make the mother-imago so dangerously powerful derive from the collective archetype of the anima, which is incarnated anew in every male child." |
| |
| §28 "Just as the mother seems to be the first carrier of the projection-making factor for the son, so is the father for the daughter." <fc green>xRef. para 6, [[aker:collected_works:cw9i|CW9i]]</fc> | §28 "Just as the mother seems to be the first carrier of the projection-making factor for the son, so is the father for the daughter." <fc green>xRef. para 6, [[collected_works:cw9i|CW9i]]</fc> |
| |
| §29 "... I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit. The animus corresponds to the paternal Logos just as the anima corresponds to the maternal Eros." \\ <fc green>More in this paragraph on the interaction between man and woman, anima and animus. ... </fc>\\ | §29 "... I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit. The animus corresponds to the paternal Logos just as the anima corresponds to the maternal Eros." \\ <fc green>More in this paragraph on the interaction between man and woman, anima and animus. ... </fc>\\ |
| §39 "Not all the contents of the anima and animus are projected, however. Many of them appear spontaneously in dreams and so on, and many more can be made conscious through **active imagination**. In this way we find that thoughts, feelings, and affects are alive in us which we would never have believed possible." <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> | §39 "Not all the contents of the anima and animus are projected, however. Many of them appear spontaneously in dreams and so on, and many more can be made conscious through **active imagination**. In this way we find that thoughts, feelings, and affects are alive in us which we would never have believed possible." <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> |
| |
| §40 "The autonomy of the collective unconscious expresses itself in the figures of anima and animus. They personify those of its contents which, when withdrawn from projection, can be integrated into consciousness. To this extent, both figures represent //functions// which filter the contents of the collective unconscious through to the conscious mind. They appear or behave as such, however, only so long as the tendencies of the conscious and unconscious do not diverge too greatly. Should any tension arise, these functions, harmless till then, confront the conscious mind in personified form and behave rather like systems split off from the personality, or like part souls. ... \\ The reason for their behaving in this way is that though the //contents// of anima and animus can be integrated they themselves cannot, since they are archetypes. As such they are the foundation stones of the psychic structure, which in its totality exceeds the limits of consciousness and therefore can never become the object of direct cognition. Though the effects of anima and animus can be made conscious, they themselves are factors transcending consciousness and beyond the reach of perception and volition. Hence they remain autonomous despite the integration of their contents, ... constant observation pays the unconscious a tribute that more or less guarantees its co-operation. ... \\ The **complementary** and **compensating** function of the unconscious ensures that these dangers, which are especially great in neurosis, can in some measure be avoided. It is only under ideal conditions, when life is still simple and unconscious enough to follow the serpentine path of instinct without hesitation or misgiving, that the compensation works with entire success. The more civilized, the more unconscious and complicated a man is, the less he is able to follow his instincts. <fc green>xRef para. 17 [[aker:collected_works:cw7|CW 7]]</fc>...\\ it is especially important to picture the archetypes of the unconscious not as a rushing phantasmagoria of fugitive images but as constant, autonomous factors, which indeed they are." <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> | §40 "The autonomy of the collective unconscious expresses itself in the figures of anima and animus. They personify those of its contents which, when withdrawn from projection, can be integrated into consciousness. To this extent, both figures represent //functions// which filter the contents of the collective unconscious through to the conscious mind. They appear or behave as such, however, only so long as the tendencies of the conscious and unconscious do not diverge too greatly. Should any tension arise, these functions, harmless till then, confront the conscious mind in personified form and behave rather like systems split off from the personality, or like part souls. ... \\ The reason for their behaving in this way is that though the //contents// of anima and animus can be integrated they themselves cannot, since they are archetypes. As such they are the foundation stones of the psychic structure, which in its totality exceeds the limits of consciousness and therefore can never become the object of direct cognition. Though the effects of anima and animus can be made conscious, they themselves are factors transcending consciousness and beyond the reach of perception and volition. Hence they remain autonomous despite the integration of their contents, ... constant observation pays the unconscious a tribute that more or less guarantees its co-operation. ... \\ The **complementary** and **compensating** function of the unconscious ensures that these dangers, which are especially great in neurosis, can in some measure be avoided. It is only under ideal conditions, when life is still simple and unconscious enough to follow the serpentine path of instinct without hesitation or misgiving, that the compensation works with entire success. The more civilized, the more unconscious and complicated a man is, the less he is able to follow his instincts. <fc green>xRef para. 17 [[collected_works:cw7|CW 7]]</fc>...\\ it is especially important to picture the archetypes of the unconscious not as a rushing phantasmagoria of fugitive images but as constant, autonomous factors, which indeed they are." <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> |
| |
| §41 "Together they <fc green>(The anima and animus archetypes)</fc> form a divine pair,<fc red><sup>5</sup></fc> one of whom, in accordance with his Logos nature, is characterized by //pneuma// and //nous//, rather like Hermes with his ever-shifting hues, while the other, in accordance with her Eros nature, wears the features of Aphrodite, Helen (Selene), Persephone, and Hecate. Both of them are unconscious powers, "gods" in fact, as the ancient world quite rightly conceived them to be. ...for their <fc green>(The anima and animus)</fc> power grows in proportion to the degree that they remain unconscious."\\ <fc red><sup>5</sup></fc><sub>Naturally this is not meant as a psychological definition, let alone a metaphysical one. As I pointed out in "[[aker:collected_works:cw7|The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious]]" (pars. 296ff.), the syzygy consists of three elements: \\ <fc green>1)</fc> the femininity pertaining to the man and<fc green>/or</fc> the masculinity pertaining to the woman; \\ <fc green>2)</fc> the experience which man has of woman and vice versa; and, \\ <fc green>3)</fc> finally, the masculine and feminine archetypal image. \\ The first element can be integrated into the personality by the process of conscious realization, but the last one cannot. | §41 "Together they <fc green>(The anima and animus archetypes)</fc> form a divine pair,<fc red><sup>5</sup></fc> one of whom, in accordance with his Logos nature, is characterized by //pneuma// and //nous//, rather like Hermes with his ever-shifting hues, while the other, in accordance with her Eros nature, wears the features of Aphrodite, Helen (Selene), Persephone, and Hecate. Both of them are unconscious powers, "gods" in fact, as the ancient world quite rightly conceived them to be. ...for their <fc green>(The anima and animus)</fc> power grows in proportion to the degree that they remain unconscious."\\ <fc red><sup>5</sup></fc><sub>Naturally this is not meant as a psychological definition, let alone a metaphysical one. As I pointed out in "[[collected_works:cw7|The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious]]" (pars. 296ff.), the syzygy consists of three elements: \\ <fc green>1)</fc> the femininity pertaining to the man and<fc green>/or</fc> the masculinity pertaining to the woman; \\ <fc green>2)</fc> the experience which man has of woman and vice versa; and, \\ <fc green>3)</fc> finally, the masculine and feminine archetypal image. \\ The first element can be integrated into the personality by the process of conscious realization, but the last one cannot. |
| </sub> | </sub> |
| |