Jung, psyket, arketypisk psykologi, djupspykologi

[JimmyAberg]

Är det någon som är påläst i Jungs och andras idéer kring psyket, och arketyper? Jag själv känner att jag blir mer och mer intresserad av Jung, har dock läst väldigt lite.

Jag kommer nu läsa in mig lite på honom, och ser fram emot att diskutera hans idéer med någon annan som gör detsamma.

(Edit: Böt namn på tråden)

[JimmyAberg]

http://www.chalquist.com/depth.html
http://www.terrapsych.com/depth.html

Broadly speaking, Depth psychology

operates according to the following working assumptions:

1. All psychological activity arises from a base of fantasy or image (Freud's "primary process").
2. The mind is an arena or interplay of dynamic, passionate forces connected to a somatic base.
3. The psyche is a process--one could say: a verb rather than a noun--that is partly conscious and partly unconscious. The unconscious in turn contains repressed experiences and other personal-level issues in its “upper” layers and “transpersonal” (i.e. collective, non-I, archetypal) forces in its depths.
4. The psyche is irreducible to either neurochemistry or some “higher” spiritual reality: it is a “third” between matter and spirit that must be taken on its own terms. This principle of the psyche's reality is known as “psychic objectivity” (Jung). (Archetypalists, who represent an offshoot of classical Jungian psychology, refer to the psyche’s in-between quality as “liminal” or “imaginal.”)
Because the psyche constitutes its own realm of experience, it must be studied with methods that take its autonomy into account. Interpretation of symbols and symptoms, active imagination, dream analysis, and depth-oriented studies of culture and myth are a few examples.
5. The psyche spontaneously generates mythico-religious symbolism and is therefore spiritual as well as instinctive in nature. An implication of this is that the choice of whether to be a spiritual person or not doesn't exist; the only question is exactly where we put our spirituality: do we live it consciously or unknowingly invest it in nonspiritual aspirations (perfectionism, addictions, greed, fame) that eventually possess us by virtue of their ignored but frightfully potent numinous power?
6. Symptoms represent important unconscious messages to oneself and should be managed—if necessary, through psychotherapy or pharmacology or both—but not indiscriminately silenced. (“The gods have become diseases,” as Jung wrote.) Symptom is one way by which the psyche tells us that we're not listening to its deeper voices.
7. There is a “seat of meaningful experience” (Corbett) where the psyche’s personal and transpersonal poles meet; this seat is referred to as soul. Hillman refers to it as an imaginative deepening of events into experiences. One of depth psychology’s aims is to bring discussion of soul back into psychology. (See the work of Hillman, Moore, Sardello, and Watkins.)
8. Soul is considered a subjectivity that extends everywhere; everything has a “within,” as Schopenhauer and Teilhard de Chardin believed. The depth practitioner enriches the depths by being a witness to this subjectivity.
9. Depth psychology rejects as philosophically archaic the absolute Cartesian split between self and other and instead posits a shifting interactive field of subjective and objective activities. A projection, for instance, is seen as dancing imaginally in the space between the “sender” and the “receiver” of it.
10. An implication of interactivity is that “objective” research when applied to the psyche is limited and even fictionalized by the fact that we change whatever we study. Whereas empirical investigation uncovers only those facets of the psyche that are easily quantified, depth psychology deconstructs this would-be empiricism by envisioning the psyche studying itself as a “hall of mirrors” (Romanyshyn) in which a consciousness sensitized to its own relativity participates in perpetually reflected realities.
11. Traditional depth-psychological thought carried all the sexist misinformation and cultural biases of the nineteenth century. The depth psychology of today critiques the equation of gender with sex, dispenses with theoretical constructs that reinforce old stereotypes about women and men (e.g., mothers as the primary source of psychopathology; women = passively yin and men = actively yang, etc.), and investigates the psyche in its personal, biological, cultural, and archetypal context.
12. All minds, all lives, are ultimately embedded in some sort of myth-making. Mythology is not a series of old explanations for natural events; it is rather the richness and wisdom of humanity played out in a wondrous symbolical storytelling.
13. Personal symptoms, conflicts, and stucknesses contain a mythic or transpersonal/archetypal core that when interpreted can reintroduce the client to the meaning of his struggles (e.g., the pain of leaving home can be reimagined as the ageless adventure of the wanderer setting out into the unknown). The danger in tending only to the transpersonal is inflation of the ego (e.g., pie-in-the-sky New Ageism and "spiritual bypass"); the danger in reductively focusing only on the personal is narcissistic devaluation of spiritual experiences.
14. Depth psychology arose as movements of liberation swept the globe. It counteracts what Diane Taylor calls "percepticide" and what Robert J. Lifton identifies as "psychic numbing" by tending to what the colonial-hierarchical ego represses, ignores, and numbs itself from contacting: inner and outer voices and images and movements from beyond the mainstream consciousness. From this perspective healing is a form of decolonization (see Lorenz and Watkins, "Individuation, Seeing-through, and Liberation").
15. Because we have a psychical share in all that surrounds us, we are sane and whole only to the degree that we care for our environment and tend responsibly to the world in which we live.

[JimmyAberg]

Jungs influenser (från Wikipedia)

Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini, one of art cinema's most renowned filmmakers, brought to the screen an exuberant imagery shaped by his encounter with the ideas of Carl Jung, especially Jungian dream interpretation. Fellini preferred Jung to Freud because Jungian psychoanalysis defined the dream not as a symptom of a disease that required a cure but rather as a link to archetypal images shared by all of humanity

Detta är något jag håller med om.

[JimmyAberg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology

[JimmyAberg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetypal_psychology

Polytheistic psychology

Thomas Moore says of James Hillman’s teaching that he “portrays the psyche as inherently multiple”. [1] In Hillman’s archetypal/polytheistic view, the psyche or soul has many directions and sources of meaning—and this can feel like an ongoing state of conflict—a struggle with one’s daimones. According to Hillman, “polytheistic psychology can give sacred differentiation to our psychic turmoil…”.[2]. Hillman states that, "The power of myth, its reality, resides precisely in its power to seize and influence psychic life. The Greeks knew this so well, and so they had no depth psychology and psychopathology such as we have. They had myths. And we have no myths as such -instead, depth psychology and psychopathology. Therefore... psychology shows myths in modern dress and myths show our depth psychology in ancient dress."[3] Hillman qualifies his many references to gods as differing from a literalistic approach saying that for him they are aides memoires, ie. sounding boards employed "for echoing life today or as bass chords giving resonance to the little melodies of life."[4] Hillman further insists that he does not view the pantheon of gods as a 'master matrix' against which we should measure today and thereby decry modern loss of richness.

[JimmyAberg]

Nu hittade jag en text som lyfter fram det jag menade, dvs. syftet med tråden:

Från: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetypal_psychology

Psyche, or Soul
Main articles: Psyche (psychology) and Soul

Hillman says he has been critical of the 20th century’s psychologies (e.g. biological psychology, behaviorism, cognitive psychology) that have adopted a natural scientific philosophy and praxis. His main criticisms include that they are reductive, materialistic, and literal; they are psychologies without psyche, without soul. Accordingly, Hillman’s oeuvre has been an attempt to restore psyche to its proper place in psychology. Hillman sees the soul at work in imagination, in fantasy, in myth and in metaphor. He also sees soul revealed in psychopathology, in the symptoms of psychological disorders. Psyche-pathos-logos is the “speech of the suffering soul” or the soul’s suffering of meaning. A great portion of Hillman’s thought attempts to attend to the speech of the soul as it is revealed via images and fantasies.

Hillman has his own definition of soul. Primarily, he notes that soul is not a “thing,” not an entity. Nor is it something that is located “inside” a person. Rather, soul is “a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint towards things… (it is) reflective; it mediates events and makes differences…”(1975). Soul is not to be located in the brain or in the head, for example (where most modern psychologies place it), but human beings are in psyche. The world, in turn, is the anima mundi, or the world ensouled. Hillman often quotes a phrase coined by the Romantic poet John Keats: “call the world the vale of soul-making.”

Additionally, Hillman (1975) says he observes that soul:

   refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second the significance of soul makes possible, whether in love or religious concern, derives from its special relationship with death. And third, by soul I mean the imaginative possibility in our natures the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, fantasy—that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical.

The notion of soul as imaginative possibility, in relation to the archai or root metaphors, is what Hillman has termed the “poetic basis of mind.”

Detta är den CENTRALA:

Psyche-pathos-logos is the “speech of the suffering soul” or the soul’s suffering of meaning. A great portion of Hillman’s thought attempts to attend to the speech of the soul as it is revealed via images and fantasies.

Idag använder vi begrepp som "psykologi", utifrån utgångspunkten att "psyket" är något som bokstavlig talat, går att reducera till materiella: His main criticisms include that they are reductive, materialistic, and literal; they are psychologies without psyche, without soul.

Denna "naiva materialism" i förhållande till psykologi är något väldigt förödande.


Jag håller fast vid att psyko-logi är något som i huvudsak bör studeras utifrån psyket, och att det objektiva/kemiska är symptomatiskt kring psyket, dvs. själens värld.

Vi ser ofta depression som ett "symtom", där orsaken är låg seratoninhalt, snarare än att låg seratoninhalt är ett symptom för en "själens depression" - och detta är högst förödande för själen.

...

Jämför detta med behovet av att köpa en ny bil (senaste årsmodell) om vi redan har en bil med några år på nacken: varför vill vi ha en ny bil? Är det för bilens objektiva egenskaper? Dvs förmåga att transportera oss från plats A till B? Antagligen inte. Vi kanske köper en ny, större bil om vi fått tillökning i familjen. Men i annat fall, är vi främst ute efter bilens symboliska värde och detta är ett enkelt konkret exempel på varför psyket (dvs. själen) inte går att reduceras till ren objektiv materialism.

Det handlar istället om en föreställning kring en arketyp vi har, dvs. patriarken. Att bilen är en symbol för oberoende, självständighet, framgång, lycka, makt, värde, ansträning, osv. Det är dessa egenskaper vi gör anspråk på att förmedla till våra medmänniskor. Genom att vi gör detta så uttrycker vi våran arketypiska roll, vilket upplevs som meningsfullt.


Naturligtvis går det, att resonera kring arketypernas uppkomst, och här kan argument om evolution, dna osv. vara relevanta, dvs. att våra "arketyper" är uttryck för "nedärvda instinkter", osv - men - detta argument gör inte att vi kan "reducera" psyko-logi till evolutionsteori. Det enda evolutionsteorin gör, är att ge oss ett sätt att legitimera arketypernas framväxt.

Arketyperna ska alltså tolkas symboliskt. osv.

[JimmyAberg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hillman

Archetypal Psychology:
A brief account was written in 1983 as a basic introduction to the psychology that Hillman has created. It covers the major themes set out in his more comprehensive work Re:visioning psychology. The poetic basis of mind places psychological activities in the realm of images. It seeks to explore images rather than explain them. Within this is the idea that by re-working images, that is giving them attention and shaping and forming them until they are clear as possible then a therapeutic process which Hillman calls "soul making" takes place. Hillman equates the psyche with the soul and seeks to set out a psychology based without shame in art and culture. This draws from a sense of images as that which a person is drawn to and looks at in a meaningful way. Indeed the act of being drawn to and looking deeper at the images presented creates meaning. Further to Hillman's project is a sense of the dream as the basic model of the psyche. This is set out more fully in "the Dream and the Underworld." In this text Hillman suggests that dreams show us as we are; diverse, taking very different roles, experiencing fragments of meaning that are always on the tip of consciousness. They also place us inside images, rather than images inside us. This move turns traditional epistemology on its head. The source of knowing is not Descartes "I" but rather there is a world full of images that this I inhabits. Hillman further suggests a new understanding of psychopathology. He stresses the importance of psychopathology to the human experience and replaces it out of a medical understanding into a poetic one. In this idea sickness is a vital part of the way the soul of a person, that illusive and subjective phenomenon becomes known.

[JimmyAberg]

Här hittade jag en googlebooks länk:

http://books.google.se/books?id=HfzPiirZQGQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[JimmyAberg]

Mer insiktsfulla uttalanden kring/om Hillman:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/magazine/how-the-soul-is-sold.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

Hillman Heavy asks no less than to replace the governing beliefs of psychoanalysis. In Hillman's view psychology should be about depth, not growth. "After a certain age you do not grow," he has said. "If you start growing after that age, it's cancer." He has devoted decades to dethroning our culture's faith in the ego, to deflating our worship of heroic action and to deprecating our certainty in the concept of self. Hillman wants society to turn away from its obsession with the unanchored altitudes of spirit, and come back down to earth, to the soul. He also asks us to reject the judgmental thinking of monotheism and return our psyches to the polytheism exemplified by ancient Greece.

He scorns society's attempts to repress pornography, explaining that the imagination is more powerful than our rational beliefs. No matter what laws we enact ("Law is the myth of America. Lawyers are our priests") he says, the truths of human nature embodied in the myths will be played out over and over again, never losing their ability to shock. He cites an example: "The most recent case of Priapus, who was stocky, middle-aged, swarthy, was Clarence Thomas. There he was, uncovered on TV. It was an exposure. That whole myth reappeared."

Hillman offers no recommendations; he doesn't try to fix things: "My suggestion is that there's no way out of the human condition," he says. "Sex, death, marriage, children, parents, illness. There's no way out. They're a misery, all of them. You can spend 10 years in therapy and it will still be sex, death, marriage . . . "

What was breaking through was that he no longer could accept what he saw as the smug assumption that he, or anyone else, could cure people. He also believed that since Jung's death in 1961 his disciples had stopped thinking for themselves and were turning Jung's work into a religion. Hillman's answer for his crisis was an old one. It was the guiding principle behind the Renaissance and the Romantics: a return to Greece. As with all things Hillman, not a literal return but a return of the imagination. He began a serious study of Greek mythology, and found in those endlessly strange, profoundly imaginative stories, a way to reconnect to psychology.

Jung too was intrigued with polytheism, but for Hillman it became the organizing principle of the psyche. In a real break from Jung, he turned away from what was the accepted essence of mental health: a wholeness of personality, individuation. Instead he wanted to take the heroic self off its pedestal. As Moore explains in "A Blue Fire," "Hillman's psychological polytheism does not portray a life of chaos but one of many elements rising and falling . . . " Hillman calls the school he founded (though he rejects the word founder as too heroic) archetypal psychology.

Hillman realized that in order to resume his vocation, he had to re-imagine it. He stopped seeing himself as a doctor curing people and envisioned himself as being in a sculpture studio, working with his patients on the contours of their psyches.

What set Hillman apart from the psychiatric community, Moore believes, was his desire to take therapy out of the scientific, medical world to a more slippery realm, to caring for the psyche, the soul. It is a concept Hillman traces from Heraclitus and Plato to Freud and Jung. This idea of caring for the soul has been very good to Thomas Moore. But both he and Hillman acknowledge the difficulty of defining just what soul is.

"It's endless learning for me," he says of watching their friendships and feuds. "One thing I learn is that so much human psychopathology is just exaggerated animal behavior. The myths keep us reminded we are animals, too. Of our kinship."

For Hillman, in an essential way we are no different from characters in the Greek myths. We are not masters of the world, or even of ourselves. He explains in his first book, "Emotion," written in 1960 and recently reissued. "Most theoretical models hold that rages, fears and passions are our personal responsibility. Somehow, somewhere, they are located inside us. . . . My contention here, however, shall be that though they be felt deeply, and we suffer emotions physically and inwardly, this fact does not make them 'ours.' Rather, I believe that emotions are there to make us theirs. They want to possess us, rule us, win us over completely to their vision."

Such ideas don't reduce us, he says, but relieve us of the burdens of self. "You get the feeling you're not trapped in your own mistakes -- there are larger things at work," he says. "You can see you are caught in a love story like Eros, or you are being a hero in some terrible myth of cleaning the stables."

Unlike Joseph Campbell, who intellectually roamed the globe examining the myths of the world and the universal themes found in them, Hillman is unapologetically specific, insistent on the primacy of Greece: "It's the foundation of everything we do. We use the language. Its politics, ethics, science. We can't help but be partly Greek. To write it off as dead white male patriarchy is just a piece of suicide."

He believes that much of current psychological thought has become dogma -- damaging dogma -- such as an obsession with the events of our childhood, which he says helps keep us in a childlike state, more concerned with reliving our pasts than addressing the issues of the world. He also wants us to expand our vision beyond our own world, to reconnect with images and stories of the ancient past. "We live in a secular world where all mysteries are called problems."

One old idea he wants revitalized is the belief in animism -- that is, the whole world is alive, and all things are ensouled. It is a belief that strikes at the essence of our Western, scientific world view, a view bequeathed by Descartes and Newton that the world is knowable, and mechanistically reducible to its component parts. He says we fool ourselves if we think human beings have transcended the primitive awareness of the spirit inherent in the world.

Yet through depression we enter depths and in depths find soul. Depression is essential to the tragic sense of life. . . . It reminds of death. The true revolution begins in the individual who can be true to his or her depression.

[JimmyAberg]

A important emphasis for most Jungians appears to be their way of viewing psychopathology, or what is more commonly today called disorders or syndromes. Jungians typically observe that one of the human psyche’s functions is to “pathologize.” The purpose or aim of pathology is seen as part of the healing process. For instance, if the psyche did not create symptoms, we would never know that anything was amiss. Not only this, but the healing message is thought to be found in the symptoms. It is a mistake on this point however, to think that Jungians would view that pathology or some destructive behavior is to be encouraged. What is salient here is that symptoms are not to be avoided or downplayed, but the meaning, which has often heretofore been missed, needs to be discovered in order for healing to take place. One popular way Jungians have for viewing is illustrated with the very word psychopathology. By breaking up the word into its parts:

psyche = soul, pathos = suffering, logos = meaning.

Thus, the word can be seen as meaning the “meaning of the suffering of the soul.”

[J R Auk]

Är det någon som är påläst i Jungs och andras idéer kring psyket, och arketyper? Jag själv känner att jag blir mer och mer intresserad av Jung, har dock läst väldigt lite.

Jag kommer nu läsa in mig lite på honom, och ser fram emot att diskutera hans idéer med någon annan som gör detsamma.

(Edit: Böt namn på tråden)

Har bara läst hans biografi, Mitt liv. Men skulle inte vara främmande för att djupa dykare (tvärt om skall det vara förstås).

[David H]

A important emphasis for most Jungians appears to be their way of viewing psychopathology, or what is more commonly today called disorders or syndromes. Jungians typically observe that one of the human psyche’s functions is to “pathologize.” The purpose or aim of pathology is seen as part of the healing process. For instance, if the psyche did not create symptoms, we would never know that anything was amiss. Not only this, but the healing message is thought to be found in the symptoms. It is a mistake on this point however, to think that Jungians would view that pathology or some destructive behavior is to be encouraged. What is salient here is that symptoms are not to be avoided or downplayed, but the meaning, which has often heretofore been missed, needs to be discovered in order for healing to take place. One popular way Jungians have for viewing is illustrated with the very word psychopathology. By breaking up the word into its parts:

psyche = soul, pathos = suffering, logos = meaning.

Thus, the word can be seen as meaning the “meaning of the suffering of the soul.”

Som sjukvårdsanställd kan jag känna igen mig i detta. Jag tycker att Jungs syn på detta i grunden är vettig, och kanske inte så kontroversiell egentligen...i mångt och mycket kan det nog beskrivas som en ganska modern syn. Nya koncept som "personcentrering" och att betrakta vårdtagaren som subjekt etc, stämmer väl egentligen ganska bra ihop med Jungs förhållningssätt.

[David H]

Nu senast har jag börjat lyssna igenom en "readers edition" av "The Red Book". Jag har varit tveksam till att läsa den tidigare då Jung ska ha sagt att han inte ville ha den boken publicerad,,, kanske pga dess mer allvarsamma karaktär. Men jag tycker inte att det är läge att hålla igen nu.

Jag läser Jung med både fascination och skepsis. Mycket av det han skriver övertygar mig inte, men jag dömer inte heller ut det. Att min läsning av Jung vid flera tillfällen triggat igång ganska spektakulära drömmar hos mig är väl ett tecken på att han lyckas med att beröra på ett djupare plan.

En sak som kan noteras är att Jung ofta använder sig av subjektiv validering som grund för sin argumentation och stöd för sina slutsatser. I vårt moderna vetenskapssamhälle tenderar detta att ses som en kardinalsynd, och det är väl en central orsak till att Jung inte har särskilt gott rykte exempelvis inom akademisk psykologi. Jag håller med om att det är problematiskt med subjektiv validering, men det är inte heller problemfritt med objektiv validering heller. Subjektiv- och objektiv- validering har både olika för- och nackdelar. Jag skrev om det i ett bloginlägginlägg här

[David H]

On January 30, she [Cary Fink] noted that Jung said of a dream which she had told him:

That it was a preparation for the Red Book because the Red Book told of the battle between the world of reality and the world of the spirit. You said in that battle you had been very nearly torn asunder but that you had managed to keep your feet on the earth & make an effect on reality That you said for you was the test of any idea, and that you had no respect for any ideas however winged that had to exist off in space and were unable to make an impression on reality

Detta citat är väl ganska typiskt för Jung. Att han intresserade sig för andevärlden, men också var mån om att påverka yttre världens händelser. Det är ett svårt, men viktigt projekt tror jag...säg hur själen, arketyper, "förståelse för det irrationella" osv kan bli en del av realpolitiken.

[Anders]

On January 30, she [Cary Fink] noted that Jung said of a dream which she had told him:

That it was a preparation for the Red Book because the Red Book told of the battle between the world of reality and the world of the spirit. You said in that battle you had been very nearly torn asunder but that you had managed to keep your feet on the earth & make an effect on reality That you said for you was the test of any idea, and that you had no respect for any ideas however winged that had to exist off in space and were unable to make an impression on reality

Detta citat är väl ganska typiskt för Jung. Att han intresserade sig för andevärlden, men också var mån om att påverka yttre världens händelser. Det är ett svårt, men viktigt projekt tror jag...säg hur själen, arketyper, "förståelse för det irrationella" osv kan bli en del av realpolitiken.

Spirit som i spöke eller som i den värld vi skapar med våra hjärnor? Världsanden?