Complex Archetype Symbol in the Psychology of C.G.Jung
"In a sense, the symbol can make even
the divine visible...." Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker,
by Jolande Jacobi
Review by Hringari Óðinssen
The most interesting question brought
up in this particular volume is the question of the ability, or inability, of
the psychic structure of the individual to find access to symbols. Jung is quoted
as stating that "far too many individuals are cut off from the figurative
language of their psyche, and these are precisely the highly civilized, the intellectuals.
They are no longer capable of grasping anything more than the outward facade,
the semiotic aspect of a symbol." **
In Kant's Critique of Judgment, he assigned
'symbol' to mode of intuition, taking the innate base-level existence of
symbol interpretation to be an evolute of the a priori state. Jung, however, considers
symbol interpretation to be a product of the wholeness of an individual's being,
and its interpretation a manifestation of resonance in all our psychic functions
at once; thought, feeling, senses and intuition - producing a total reaction.
Goethe, in his Theory of Colours, expresses
this type of meaningful reaction when he compared the colours of red and green,
and the universal meaning assigned to them. He asserted that a principle
of totality was concealed in the separation and convergence of antithetical colour
pairs, thus maintaining that behind all partial symbolism a universal whole was
Jung also alludes to colour when describing
the archetype as invisible, "the ultraviolet end of the psychic spectrum..."
a latent and yet imperceptible image.
In his statement, from Psychological Aspects
of the Mother Archetype, Jung admits that "...archetypes are not disseminated
only by tradition, language, and migration, but...can re-arise spontaneously,
at any time, at any place, and without any outside influence...there are present
in every psyche forms which are unconscious but nonetheless active - living dispositions,
ideas....that preform and continually influence our thoughts..."
Here he is, to my mind, simply affirming
that the gods are always existent, yet in attempting to use these ideas he grasped
so thoroughly and fit them into the 'scientific' and analytical mode of his day,
the early atomic age, he could concede these are autonomous elements of the psyche
yet not be able to assign them to their rightful status. Does not that perceived
separate, primal, autonomous dynamism, each having an individual makeup with its
own powers and responses, connote the existence and status belonging to a god?
Yet he was forced to attribute these components
of nature and of man to mere material, biological processes, to inherited psychic
patterns of behaviour within humankind as a whole.
The psychologists following this line of
thought current with Jung believed that the archetypes could never be known, that
one could only describe the effects that emanate from them, but never pin them.
This connotes the mind-set of individuals closed to the living presence of entities
independent of the human race, men who have made themselves inaccessible to the
Part of this reluctance to use such terminology
rests in the predominant idea of the time, Jung's idea that 'gods', as they were
known to such minds, are only to be propitiated, that they are demanding and cruel
spirits of the sky. He goes so far as to assert that translating the archetype
finally into a communicable language is the only way that it can fulfill its "psychic
purpose", and once this is done its reason for existence at the outset will
be dissolved and another will take its place.
Jung saw that all these symbols and archetypes
pointed toward ultimate confrontation of opposites, which was insightful but did
not lead to any resolution regarding allowing these 'symbols' to manifest themselves
with any validity. Accepting the idea that these are manifestations of man's consciousness
merely, and not owning of independent outside existences, to follow one symbol
or archetype alone as suggested would be to create drastic one-sidedness in the
psyche, especially when one is not apt to allow for divine intervention in any
way. This one-sidedness is fair danger to the soul.
IMHO - As far as dream interpretation goes,
dreams are of varying types. Most are merely reflections of thought-constructs
(vikalpas) created during the waking state. These can indeed be useful if we are
confused about the reality of our daily life, as Jung says, if we live in the
intellect and not in the world. They may indeed represent something we are unwilling
to consciously acknowledge, and may be instructive thereof.
Other dreams are combinational glimpses of
past occurrences mixed with emotional response, and if at all useful they are
a means of venting waking state repressed response and perhaps frustration, not
The more rare are predictive. Rarely does
a truly predictive dream ever include symbology, though. It will be found, on
the other hand, to be a clear forward reflection of reality.
**Very seldom does a mind of higher intellectual
capacity have a purely symbolic dream, for higher intellect has a tendency to
direct itself through dream as it does through the waking state. This is also
true of the analytical mind during the waking state, sacrificing its connection
with its own Source for the sake of the objective-analysis-assimilating characteristic
of intellect (buddhi) itself.
© 2004-2007 Northvegr.
Most of the material on this site is in the public domain. However, many people have worked very hard to bring these texts to you so if you do use the work, we would appreciate it if you could give credit to both the Northvegr site and to the individuals who worked to bring you these texts. A small number of texts are copyrighted and cannot be used without the author's permission. Any text that is copyrighted will have a clear notation of such on the main index page for that text. Inquiries
can be sent to email@example.com.
Northvegr™ and the Northvegr symbol are trademarks and service marks
of the Northvegr Foundation.