pages "Jungian" abound in references to medieval bestiary, fairy tales, archaic symbols and all kinds of imagery more or less esoteric and may not reflect, much less make
psychologically understandable, as this makes clear days after day, for example, in the progressive destruction of ecological or economic globalization or the emergence of technological means to alter the communication and transport it to levels never suspected (Internet, SMSs, iPhone, etc.). In psychology
deep is a flight to "children" not only literal, the style Freudian, but the symbolic childhood in which the human being could be experienced and identified content with a cosmos "encouraged." This
infantilism manifests itself in the interests and occupations of Jungian psychologists called Myths, stories, ancient religions, synchronicity, mysticism and spirituality of other times and cultures. Given the present circumstances of the West, manifest psychology
boasts childishness. Here
, seems to say, nothing has happened
. But is it "lived and identified content with a lively cosmos" as the very survival of the planet seems to depend more than ever the activity of men and their technology decisions or is it rather an impostor? When the planet is surrounded by satellites that monitor all its regions, or astronomy offers us a universe populated by black holes, galaxies and stars that appear and disappear over millions of years, and when we are in a position to send technology spacecraft to other planets? Are you not a play to live "as if" the planets talked, the whispering river, and "nature" was inhabited by gnomes and elves? Could it be that a neurotic denial that rivers are contaminated and will no longer be what they were, and the planets, at least the solar system are becoming more amenable to progressive colonization, and "nature" in which we live is no longer "nature" in which our ancestors lived? That argument
as stubborn and as accurate as those of Wolfgang Giegerich
not only be answered, but not even be understood, and I will not say to the fans, but by the same professionals in psychology, is a symptom more from this present misery.
In 1978, in the article translated and posted on the web, "
This dimension of the soul as " among other things Giegerich said:
The fact that an object has for us is not simply of its real nature, but even more awareness to appreciate it. One swallow does not make a summer, but even a thousand swallows do. Applied to psychology this means not everything is about the mother-child complex, the anima and individuation is ipso facto and psychology. The concepts and content of psychology per se are not the essential nature of psychology. What is decisive is rather that the orientation of consciousness within which this content is perceived as psychological.
'm objecting to here empiricism in psychology, a position he believes that psychological problems can be solved scientifically and directly into the structure and on the basis of empirical experience and practice, no one is simultaneously engaged in reflections on key issues archetypal philosophical nature. But the issue of one's assumptions in this way should not be ignored, for it is an integral part of the constitution of psychology: psychological objects and archetypal structure of consciousness that are considered are the two moments that only together constitute the phenomenology psychological.
A psychology analytical empiricist operates a fantasy ... it is believed able to see as "objectively given" all the psychological phenomenon, as it is, after all, only a partial, and also an abstraction. My interest is about particular direction in which research should move to become psychological psychological first. I'm looking for the dimension of the soul and psychology, I find, and consolidate particular space which alone makes possible a psychology and psychology, and enables it to thrive. In 1988, in his "
The meaning of our problem nuclear analytical psychology "Giegerich emphasized the importance of the atomic bomb as a" landing "as a threat not only factual but real psycho-logically, in order to compensate for the flight to the afterworld. Where then said "atomic bomb" today could be "climate change", without changing the content of their acute reflection. He wrote:
The technical approach of reality only recognizes the human ego as subject, and desires of the ego as the real intention. The psyche suffering is reduced to a function which, in itself, has no meaning, or an object for our intentional action. The synthetic approach-finalist in turn also guaranteed subjectivity and intentionality to the phenomenon. Jung wanted to find out what the disease wants or seeks, contrary to what I, the analyst, or him, the ego of the patient, want. The final approach involves the idea of \u200b\u200bthe reality of the psyche and the idea of \u200b\u200bthe objective psyche, which can be called real and objective precisely because it guarantees its own subjectivity, and even personality. All analytical-reductive thinking, by contrast, must be denied the authenticity of the real from the beginning. Do not want to see the phenomenon in its real essence. Just want to know how to treat it. Modern science in the background are autoerotic. ... The "finis" not to be understood both as temporary end in the future that lies ahead of us, in the sense of linear conception of time as succession, but rather extends into the depth or height of the hidden essence or substance of this The real therapist is not the analyst, but the disease. Thus Jung might even go so far as to say that the neurosis is hidden enemy or our best friend. With this metaphor, it is given ultimate expression of subjectivity and intentionality of the phenomenon discussed in the first movement of Jung. The phenomenon is seen as a real personality. Finally, if you at first, we must consider the condition as our best friend. The disorder is the advent of a stranger (certainly not wanted) or an enemy (hostis) to receive in our home as a guest (HOSP), and accounts of the hospitable reception which may prove to be the friend who had been all the time. ... This amounts to a reversal of the common attitude about the neurosis. Here Jung pushed beyond the mind "natural" within the meaning of "opus contra naturam" alchemy. Investment does not mean here simply turn on the same level, an exchange of more or less pro-cons would be absurd to focus on the neuroses of this non-dialectical way. Rather, this is a case of overcoming dialectic (Aufhebung) why the full level of the mind "natural" is exceeded and reached a whole new level of reflection.
While individuation is understood as the opposite of socialization and adaptation and contrast in terms of me versus them, we could say that we are moving on a horizontal plane, the plane of the subject-object or extraversion versus introversion. By contrast, Jung's notion of individuation is a vertical direction. Its dynamics is descent into the depths. The fantasy behind this notion is that human life begins as psychological existence up in the clouds, supraterrestrial the realm of abstract generalities or archetypal idealizations. Although the nature of mind call us Erdenbürger (inhabitants of the earth, earthlings) from the moment we are born (and this is correct as it relates to our existence literal), Jung understood that psychologically being earthlings not start at all with our life on earth and now concrete. It is instead our task throughout our whole life down slowly from the sublime heights to anchor in the unique reality for the first time. We are not "real" in the sense of detail, but we have to become real. Self-realization in the sense of Jung's individuation is and a long way from what the term usually suggests: a kind of sublime self-indulgence, self-expansion, a dwelling in and development of their feelings, ideas, inclinations, private skills, etc. Instead self-realization is basically the downward movement of landing, found our psychological or ontological existence as singular, overwhelming our bright idealism with the reality of the dark shadow.
live in the Platonism of abstraction of our Western tradition and that Platonism was primarily supported by and held in the modern sciences. Here comes in its fullness. Science built a growing network abstract constructions more closely, and by passing their results as the actual world, we encapsulate more and more in an area timeless Platonic essences (general laws) and are divorced from the real world, even more than they already were from beginning. The clarity of scientific discoveries and the fact that we allow so successfully manipulate nature does not change the fact that keep us psychologically and unaware of the real. Put a fog between us and the cosmos. The fog is so dense that we are pushed to think that there is nothing there. We can not see it as a mist that hides the real world.
Closer to home are Jungian psychology in the same something that lends itself to a Platonic understanding. I mean the accent on the archetypes and symbols. Always amplifying images in order to reach the archetypal significance, a course away from the real cash into the timeless essences, abstract. Jung Although much has been interpreted as supporting this trend Plato, as we might call it, and even though Jung does not always seem to have been the best performer of his own vision, Jung basically understood the Platonic or essentialist way of looking at the world the actual world can be achieved, the current reality of the human being, in fact, not only lose them, but the actively destroys. And so Jung proposed his idea of \u200b\u200bindividuation as a kind of counter-program to save the cash phenomenon, which is always a individuum ineffabile at a particular time. This, the ineffable individual under the tiny species of Aristotle as the true reality, is what Jung hoped the idea of \u200b\u200bindividuation.
conventional In Jungian psychology, the dialectical connection between the archetypal and individuation is obscured by the personal interpretation of individuation on the one hand, and the interpretation of the archetype as a Platonic archetype itself, on the other. In this dialectic archetypal psychology has become evident. It was the same movement that forced Hillman to accentuate the "archetypal" above the "analytical" or "complex" in the name of this psychology on him later emphasized such as "psychology of the images, the aesthetic response to face or image of my specific situation presented here and now. Individuation does not have to refer to individuality human personality, my me-ness. Goes beyond that to an ontological individuality. You can see that behind the idea of \u200b\u200bJung's individuation is the impulse to rescue the individuality in the sense of the uniqueness of sensory experience, not interchangeable, as the final constituent of reality. But this individuality is not "merely individual, separate from the depth or height of the archetypal psyche, as in all empirical and existentialist interpretations of individuality.
Jung's idea of \u200b\u200bindividuation of humanity and his life's work and show how Jung Aion focuses on the psychology of the individual in the context of our time and the millennia of our tradition. For intimate and individual therapy may be in close company as such, is more than a private matter. Psychology extends cosmogony and cosmic dimension. And you can do this because it is no longer the Fach (compartmentalized field of study, specialty) is a scientific reality chamber called "inside man" with other disciplines and sciences that deal with all the other compartments, but has reached a whole new level of consciousness in which all thought has expired compartment. Psychology implies a very different and fresh about the world as a whole, leaving behind the scientific and religious positions, taking its content as a time surpassed him.
Our situation is very different from the old man. This just had to live with personal knowledge of his death. Our pump, by contrast, holds the promise of annihilation de todo el mundo habitable. Como tal es un símbolo, no del declive de esto o aquel contenido de consciencia o de este o aquel portador de consciencia, sino el símbolo de la decadencia del “mundo” entero, es decir, del nivel o constitución imperante de la consciencia como un todo. En cuanto tal, la bomba es nuestra única oportunidad real de un futuro verdadero. Un futuro verdadero implica una apertura hacia un nivel enteramente nuevo de consciencia. Sin el declive de la consciencia presente ontológicamente estaríamos viviendo en el pasado. Por supuesto, pueden hacerse todo tipo de cambios y adiciones dentro de la antigua casa de la consciencia, pero de todos modos permaneceríamos encerrados en la antigua die structure to this otherwise sterile death was described by Nietzsche as the life of the last men
"The earth has become small, and she hops the last man, it dwarfs everything. Their race is ineradicable like flies, the last man is the living anymore. "We have invented happiness," say the last men, and wink your eyes ... "
Jungian psychology is not free from the presence of the last man. We need look only to the flood of psychological publications have appeared in recent years for the shameful complacency overwhelmingly taste of the last man. All these books seem to say "We have discovered happiness, we know the answers, and winking eyes. All become smaller and cheaper, even the most sacred, to inflate: Gods, meaning, symbols, dreams, creativity, individuation, archetypes. Caged want sentimentality and nostalgia for a consumer availability of the spiritual treasures of the past as if they were drugs to create some kind of "high" psychological. It is painful to see how much of psychology is illusory. But this illusion, which is the ultimate happiness of men, the bomb hits like a thunderbolt. What else but the dreaded pump can cross the entire shell in which the last man has settled, and bring home the fact that what he thinks is his happiness is in fact a slow death, the mummification of a lifetime? In most Western cities have created pedestrian streets in the last ten or twenty years. This is exemplary. What is the unconscious fantasy or the desire expressed in the need for this change? In pedestrian areas, the difference between the sidewalk and the street has been leveled and traffic has been banned cars and trucks. Pedestrians want to be among them, without being disturbed by the flow of life independent, objective, our technological civilization. As the world-oneself-subjective-self of the human egos. As Jung saw it, the technological machines, cars, airplanes, etc., Are the psychological equivalent modern monsters, dragons and other animals in the soul of ancient mythology. Far the man wants isolate itself from the poisonous fumes of our dragons, noise and traffic the stink. Psychologically withdraws to the innocence and harmlessness of a human island-too-human bliss, from which the pedestrian is an external symbol. This is more than a mere allegory. Reveals the dominant fantasy today, the dominant fantasy probably behind much of psychology with its interest Autistic by introspection, self-realization, self-development, group meetings, peak experiences, etc. Against this self-congratulatory humanism, the pump is the bearer of the Unconscious, in the Jungian sense. It's a flattering idea that the unconscious is primarily manifested in us as our instinctual desires, sex, our fantasies and symptoms. The real unconscious, as always, is out all around us. Today is our technology and the economic condition of the world. Although Jung said that the individuation process as conceived not exclude, but includes the world of psychology today still has the world outside himself. Psychology is blind and deaf with respect to large situations of our era. It has nothing to say about money, banking, economy of new discoveries in science, industrialization, unemployment and the distribution of work. All this remains outside the comfortable assumptions of psychology. If "modern man is in search of a soul, then soul here means the privatized within the individual, separate from the main flow of events. In 1993, a challenger
"Matanzas" , Giegerich said:
For over two thousand years the soul has closed this access for themselves the effectiveness same, so far their only access. Since then, Western humanity has lived reserves, the remains of the resources of meaning generated in previous eras. Having abandoned the sacrifice, we have no ways to replenish those resources. As these resources are depleted more and more, mankind has inadvertently drifted into the unreality and abstraction. Absolute unreality is as appears in the guise of its opposite: "positivist reality." Unless the soul find a different way of sacrificial slaughter for real and reach general I can not really see how life can return to rooted in a real meaning and not just a substitute fake, how could real humanity to the world and get back to this earth, transforming the world into a human. I think there is that access to reality fundamentally different, but is still missing, still lies ahead. Perhaps you find it before we are willing to admit it's a missing link (absent), and suffer no compromises emptiness, meaninglessness and unreality involved in their absence. In its appendix, in Response
Hillman, said:
This brings me to the use of "Gods" in archetypal psychology. Could it be that applying the "see through" of psychology archetypal products of the same archetypal psychology is found that some of his interpretations do not have the status of "ruthless truth", but belong to a kind of Disney World? What the "Gods" seen by some psychologists in the phenomena of today are like stickers placed on the phenomena rather than a self-revelation of the Gods on or through the phenomena? I think this is the case. Much of the discourse on the gods directly seems illusory. The phenomena of life are similar throughout the ages. Because formal analogies are easy to interpret the phenomena of our time in terms of the gods that the Greeks would seen in them. But to do this you have to get the phenomena of today's modern context that informs current and give an entirely different status. Is it so implausible to think that psychology with its emphasis on images is a participant unconscious, and indeed a contributor, the powerful movement of Western humanity to the artificial world of advertising, museums, entertainment, tourism, Disneyland, virtual reality, only in a much more ennobled and a higher level intellectually? In 1996, in his "
The basic error psychology, insisted Giegerich where:
psychotherapy is a helping profession in the usual sense of the word. Its purpose is not to correct, cure, improve, either the world or individual people. Such statements are subjective desires that arise of us as ego personalities. Of course, there is nothing wrong with these objectives. Are very natural and very human. And often psychotherapy actually has a healing effect. But as Freud himself noted, the curative effect is a mere byproduct (though desirable) of analytic work, not their immediate goal. The immediate goal of psychotherapy is the "analysis" that is, gain knowledge, to do justice to psychological phenomena penetrating its deepest core and understanding them. Thus, although the desire to heal, to be free of symptoms, improve and grow as legitimate interests are not given goals for the project called psychology or psychotherapy. If, as the title of a book, we had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world is worse, you had to wait for anything better? And most importantly, would such an expectation a psychological expectation? No. psychology has nothing to do with improving the world, or the hope or despair. He has a job to do. This is her commitment. One who wishes to enter the field of psychology should therefore cross a threshold, the threshold between our feelings, needs and desires of intentionality "objective" that is characteristic of psychology.
The ideas I have outlined briefly, too briefly, immediately speak to the soul, cosmos, anima mundi, animate the world. Simply feel good. They evoke deep longing and containing a precious promise. The only problem with them, I think, is that they are psychologically anachronistic or atavistic idea as regressive as the World Council of Churches a few years ago to safeguard creation. And this is why so even deviate real psychological needs of today and tempt us away from the situation real soul. Can a conscience that has gone through the process of Christianization return to a sense of the world, the earth, nature as a place of soul, a place of theological or metaphysical significance? The purpose of Christianity is to conquer the world and the deepest yearning of a Christian is a new world. Christianity has been a truly incisive event in the history of the Western soul. With it, the veil of the temple was rent "from top to bottom, and the earth shook and the rocks were torn apart" (Matthew 27:51). This means a revolution of consciousness. More than a revolution of conscience, has been a real change, a royal court. No way back and no way back after puberty to the innocence of childhood, or behind the Reformation and the French Revolution to a truly medieval mindset. Of course, we can always repudiate what has happened, deny its reality. We can pretend that what happened was not in fact a psychological event as real as an earthquake, but only a false opinion or belief system misleading us, a human vision of things wrong, our lack of respect for the planet land. False opinions or attitudes can be corrected more or less at will. But such arguments are excuses. Through them we can certainly play the "Age Media "or even" pagan "in a manner similar to how war veterans returning to play the battles of World War II. This is always possible, but more than a hobby is an escape.
After this change I do not see how one can even seriously entertain the idea of \u200b\u200ban anima mundi. This idea is an archetypal truth, no doubt. But it is a truth that has its rightful place in ancient cultures. It is part of historical psychology. In our world is an illusion, an expression of nostalgia. I fear that psychology has nothing but the logical status with the soaps for the masses and use a provocative comparison. Could be that the psychological task we call the magnum opus remains the same through the ages. But what remains the same is obviously not the level at which there is the task for us. Christianity catapulted the psyche to a different level, and at that level at which the psyche is now where we have to face our magnum opus. Today's psyche is no longer in the level of the ancient pagan and psychology. Of course, we should not attach any value judgments with this observation. If this change is good or bad is irrelevant, in that it is real. It happened, and so the situation changed completely. So it seems psychologically wrong to try to re-animate the world directly, just like that, or expect to experience again and divine nature. It would be a nostalgic re-enactment of a historical psychological situation. I can not see how we can aspire to a new cosmology, a new re-mythologizing of nature. Nor need a new mythology and psychology of nature. Why? Because we already have our psychology of nature. Our real and legitimate psychology of physical nature is called, a term that here includes all the natural sciences as well as our real psychotherapy of nature or the world is called technology. The psychological work that has both physical nature of modern psychology is to demonstrate that there is nothing divine in nature, no elves, nymphs and spirits. Nature is but a kind of machine, an abstract formal system of laws. This is the truth of the Christian soul to the nature. So animated cosmos play against the abstract world of physics does not help the soul, helping the division neurotic, prevalent in our modern situation. Putting psychology and psychotherapy against physics and technology, just because the physics and technology does not meet our old ideas of what is soul and what is not developed ideas given where the psyche was still in a very different level, is an act of division. The soul has migrated from the cosmos and the universe has moved. And, apparently, has not done so only as a joke or by mistake. With respect to the natural world, all the passion of the soul seems to go to physics and technology. This is where the real action. And it seems a serious psychological error deny the predicate of psychological or emotional (soulful) to that which is driven by such passion of the soul. Of course, I do not want to suggest that the world as it is given by the emotional and physical is animated in the same old sense of the word, and I want to strive to discover this old type of animation physics, because I agree that there can not be found. This is the question itself: that the very meaning of soul and exciting has changed. The soul is no longer where it once was. And painful as it is, our job is to continue to put our thinking view and purchase a new definition of what is encouraged and recognized physics and technology as inalienable parts of our work in the soul. This would require our consciousness to undergo a revolution with respect to their categories and learn to see the soul where we least expect it and so far we hated her. What else could overcome the division neurotic? How otherwise could be repaid what has so long been kept separate from the soul? But we cling to the old idea of \u200b\u200bentertainment and therefore necessarily deny the vision of the physical nature of the work as a legitimate expression of the soul today, insisting instead on a new cosmology, a new conception of nature in terms of the anima mundi . And with it deepened the split and repudiate an essential part of today's magnum opus.
In my view the way to the anima mundi is closed. Nature is "finished", at least in any psychological sense, theological or metaphysical, and is "finished" is the very meaning of the message that our psychology of nature, physics, has for us. To the extent that the attempt to re-mythologizing and re-animate nature was a departure from Jung's emphasis on individuation, "just back now with my critique of the world soul to the same psychology of the Jungian individuation colleagues concerned about the world tried to quit? I fear the idea of \u200b\u200bindividuation, if it is critically examined, it belong to both the historical psychology and the psychology of the anima mundi. Today the real life of the psyche is not in the process of individuation. Lies elsewhere. The logical status of individuation is that it is psycho-logically obsolete, it is truly a thing of the past. This does not mean that the process of individuation does not exist or does not happen more. It just means that even when and where it occurs, together with the deeply satisfying experience of meaning, occurs only disconnected psychologically separated from what is truly happening in our era and suspended within self-contained bubble that we call our personal psychology.
The individuation process is completely disconnected from what is actually happening. The magnum opus of soul today is not individuation, but globalization. And globalization means elimination personal identity as something in its own right and submission of all individual software under the one great abstract goal of maximum profit, the gain should increase, but I must decrease. The process for maximum benefit (along with the need for both companies and individuals set themselves up as global competition) leads to the subjection of everything in life, and truth of Being, under the logic of money. Here it becomes necessary to remind you that these statements I am not giving my program. I am not describing what I think is good and right and desirable and should be done. Merely attempt to make the program or the logic inherent in the powerful movement "autonomous" of the soul. There is no reason a priori why the archetypal, the magnum opus to appear in the privacy of the consulting room or some other alchemical vessel, and which could not take place in the world out there, what the public domain. Here I would like to introduce a phrase coined by Goethe: "Das Geheimnis offenbaren," the mystery clear or conspicuous. " What Goethe had in mind was not a mystery or secret was revealed. I wanted to say something even if it is public knowledge remains a mystery. Perhaps one could say that precisely because it is in the limelight is not recognized as a mystery; becomes the Stone rejected by the builders. The mystery character is obscured because the phenomenon is so esoteric, so obvious. Exoteric is the best concealment, better hiding of esoteric mystery of the soul. This is analogous to Jung's view that the ego, which is notionally intended and the best known and most obvious, is really an unfathomable dark body (OC 14:129) Indeed there is good reason to believe has been a fundamental change in the history of soul.
The individuation process as a whole belongs to psychology, history, archeology. His images are not unrealistic, but they represent the reality of the past, that having once been at the forefront of life, is now historic in us. The images do not represent the reality of this. all our personal psychology with all our feelings of meaning is "buried history" are the real conditions of life of previous eras, collapsed or condensed and internalized. to insist stubbornly on our feelings of deep meaning evoked by the experience of individuation, we at While modern people are as it were playing at being "African shamans" or "witch"-without admitting however that we are merely representing these papers. In a sense we are like tourists who include a dance performance tribal or shamanic session, and as we are deeply moved by it in our personal feelings, we take this as a mark of true feeling, closing our eyes to the fact that we are witnessing a tourist attraction. Certainly, this show is the display of an old truth, but this exhibition it has no longer the status of truth. Psychology is unable to see today's magnum opus, the opus of maximum profit, as the magnum opus of the soul of today (or rather as a stage, this, of this opus in progress). Psychology feels they have to disregard it as a wrong development, has to deny its origin in el alma, negar que es la forma presente de la vida simbólica del alma. ¿Por qué? Debido al error básico de la psicología, que es que opera con (y dentro de) la oposición de “individual” y “colectivo”. La poderosa dinámica de máximo beneficio en el contexto de la competición global no es ni individual ni colectiva (un término que hablando estrictamente no denota nada más que un tipo de plural de “individual”, en todo caso. Denota una “colección de individuos”). Esta dinámica no tiene nada que ver con la gente, es de un orden completamente diferente. Es la lógica de nuestra realidad, la lógica o la verdad en la que estamos (sin tomar into account if we are only stunned victims of this process and, while managers in the industry or related things, we are active participants and contribute to it) Of course, "logic" not in the sense of abstract formal logic. What I mean is a concrete logic, a reality, a dyamis: psycho-logical. Is the actual movement of the soul is the life of the soul, which is logical life
The misery of psychology is that it has lost the ability to address the issues (serious, deep and stinging) that exposes your property Giegerich clarity. The misery of psychology is that the dynamics governing the world today inadvertent has become incomprehensible to the same psychologists who suffering from a complete lack of feeling for history and for this, they turn to an interior "individual" in which recounted the myths, legends and tales of the past,
to live as if nothing mattered , as if the soul was a substance
permanent or unchangeable
object, and insist on
give individual meaning to an existence always fought to and determined by the same historical development Naturally, not only inevitable but also mysterious. They do not realize that the mystery is no longer live where you once lived, and ancient symbols, the remote legends and fairy tales are shells for which no logic circuits that move the world.
Thus the same "depth psychology" inadvertently digs its own grave to be supplanted by the much more effective "neuroscience" or diluted to the range of "solutions" effective and pragmatic to "individual problems" in a supermarket therapy. At the end of the day in all these cases, defects of the soul and advocates a non-reflective immediacy (the "inner" or "outside"), no psychologizing, no internalized until its conclusion. The "depth" thus becomes a metaphor for "superficial" to an inner
contained in an external
inexorable, impassive, inacccesible supposedly the logos of the psyche
