I am increasing my knowledge of the psyche through the Jungian paradigm. Now, it becomes apparent that, apart from in a revisionary sense, there is no Jungian idea of the pre-Oedipal, at least not originating from Jung himself. Oedipal and of course pre-Oedipal (by extension) are closer to being Freudian constructs, and it seems to have been the work of those that came after Jung and Freud to develop their hypotheses about what happens at this stage, between the age of 1 and 3. The school of psychoanalysis called "object relations" (associable with Melanie Klein's theories) is directly relatable to the psychology of this pre-Oedipal stage.
Now, Jung works in archetypes (the psychological structuring of myths) into the stage that has to do with pre-Oedipal dynamics. It certainly seems, according to the circumstantial evidence based on findings by different theorists, that it is the dynamics of the pre-Oedipal -- namely, magical thinking, splitting, dissociation and projective identification -- that allows for the emergence of the "archetypes" within the developing psyche. So it is that Jung furnishes this level of consciousness with having the apperception of transcendent meaning and archetypal contents. This is important for it means that ego is not all there is -- rather, we are accompanied on our journey through life by the facilities of the pre-Oedipal modality, which infuse our psyche's with transcendental meanings.
The contemporary Jungian theorist's view is that transformation of the developed character structure is possible because archetypes can enter our awareness through the fundamentally less structured format of the early childhood consciousness (this is my interpretation at least of the inherent value of early childhood states of awareness). On the other hand, as adults the entering of such archetypes into our field of awareness will most probably rearrange a person's whole psychological structure, by forcing them to deal with something new upsetting the more established internal dynamics of consciousness. This view is implicitly SHAMANISTIC, since destruction of the old identity is part of the reconstruction of the new. Shamanistic initiation is based on precisely the recognition of this principle. There is no new -- no development -- without the concomitant destruction and rearrangement of the old character structure. Thus does the "self" (both primeval and transcendental in its source)facilitate the development of the post-Oedipal -- specifically, crystalised -- character structure. Change is possible -- and that which initiates the change is meaningful.
In general this approach seems right to me. My only quibble is that I am not so sure the archetypes are genuinely transcendental, rather than being purely figments of the imagination or distortions of perceptions.
If we accept the neoJungian (Sherry Salmon's) postulate that the early childhood self and the adult ego run as it were side by side, like lines along a train track (this is my way of understanding the term, "pre-Oedipal field") then the closer the association between the two, the more psychically complete one will feel.
Consider the alternative -- that if one recognises ego only, at the expense of the whole, one may end up succumbing to the effects of repression when one doesn't expect this. For instance, one may see the world and what is in it in a black and white manner by splitting the good and bad of it, whilst projecting the opposite metaphysical dimension onto others. To view reality in such a bifurcated way creates what Jung refers to as "the shadow" side to consciousness, which is an undesirable psychical construct.
Now, Jung works in archetypes (the psychological structuring of myths) into the stage that has to do with pre-Oedipal dynamics. It certainly seems, according to the circumstantial evidence based on findings by different theorists, that it is the dynamics of the pre-Oedipal -- namely, magical thinking, splitting, dissociation and projective identification -- that allows for the emergence of the "archetypes" within the developing psyche. So it is that Jung furnishes this level of consciousness with having the apperception of transcendent meaning and archetypal contents. This is important for it means that ego is not all there is -- rather, we are accompanied on our journey through life by the facilities of the pre-Oedipal modality, which infuse our psyche's with transcendental meanings.
The contemporary Jungian theorist's view is that transformation of the developed character structure is possible because archetypes can enter our awareness through the fundamentally less structured format of the early childhood consciousness (this is my interpretation at least of the inherent value of early childhood states of awareness). On the other hand, as adults the entering of such archetypes into our field of awareness will most probably rearrange a person's whole psychological structure, by forcing them to deal with something new upsetting the more established internal dynamics of consciousness. This view is implicitly SHAMANISTIC, since destruction of the old identity is part of the reconstruction of the new. Shamanistic initiation is based on precisely the recognition of this principle. There is no new -- no development -- without the concomitant destruction and rearrangement of the old character structure. Thus does the "self" (both primeval and transcendental in its source)facilitate the development of the post-Oedipal -- specifically, crystalised -- character structure. Change is possible -- and that which initiates the change is meaningful.
In general this approach seems right to me. My only quibble is that I am not so sure the archetypes are genuinely transcendental, rather than being purely figments of the imagination or distortions of perceptions.
If we accept the neoJungian (Sherry Salmon's) postulate that the early childhood self and the adult ego run as it were side by side, like lines along a train track (this is my way of understanding the term, "pre-Oedipal field") then the closer the association between the two, the more psychically complete one will feel.
Consider the alternative -- that if one recognises ego only, at the expense of the whole, one may end up succumbing to the effects of repression when one doesn't expect this. For instance, one may see the world and what is in it in a black and white manner by splitting the good and bad of it, whilst projecting the opposite metaphysical dimension onto others. To view reality in such a bifurcated way creates what Jung refers to as "the shadow" side to consciousness, which is an undesirable psychical construct.
No comments:
Post a Comment