Sections 4 & 5
For me, the most interesting facet of section five is Jung's almost interchangeable use of "understanding oneself" and "self-knowledge." In section one, by contrast, he distinguishes between understanding and knowledge. So I expected him to do the same here. Perhaps the most important aspect of this section is Jung's formulation of the human psyche as being integral to the quest for understanding oneself. The psyche is founded upon archetypes, which arise from instinct a priori. The modern man--with his morals, laws, and committment to civility (imposed by institutions)--is afraid of his "animal" self. This fear presents an insurmountable barrier to self-knowledge. Hence, Jung advocates not merely an embracing of archetypes, but also a skilled reshaping of them for present, purposeful use.
I didn't give section five too much attention. I found a curious attack on logocentrism, which interested me: "The word has literally become our god...".
I must say that there is a lot in this late work which I'm surprised to find. I enjoyed Jung's characterization of "the mass man" as reverting to an infantile state of "happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility." On the whole, though, I find myself questioning the way I'm reading his essay. I'm not chewing enough or I haven't the proper teeth to chew this work...
I didn't give section five too much attention. I found a curious attack on logocentrism, which interested me: "The word has literally become our god...".
I must say that there is a lot in this late work which I'm surprised to find. I enjoyed Jung's characterization of "the mass man" as reverting to an infantile state of "happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility." On the whole, though, I find myself questioning the way I'm reading his essay. I'm not chewing enough or I haven't the proper teeth to chew this work...
posted by AJV at 11:09 AM
1 Comments:
The use of Knowledge and Understanding in this chapter might be troubling, but I’d say that we would need to look at the original language first if we want to problematize that. Personally I think we should just say it is him returning to normal usage of words so as to make the text more accessible and not have it build up as it moves on at get too complex for an average educated reader.
Archetypes, if I remember right, are never present in their true from: they are always present in an incarnate or embodied form. The archetype itself is too general and ambiguous to be seen or understood. This is a major argument against them apparently—that they are not really there but are generalizations and abstractions that Jung and others make up out of specifics.
Jung had a dream that helped him flush out the structure of the human psyche and this dream became a major point of contention between him and Freud—it was a dream that Jung offered to Freud when they met once to analyze each other’s dreams. In the dream was a house with three levels. Each level was a layer of the psyche. The basement was unfinished and had a dirt floor. Under that floor where human bones. Of course Freud said it was a symbol of guilt—ancestral murder or something like that—and primitive humanity. Jung rejected this quite adamantly and instead said it was the archetypes, which are the history and bare bones that each individual psyche is built upon. I don’t think he ever said this exactly, but it seem in line with what I have read of his on archetypes: the bones are what we have deep in our psyche but we need to fill them out with flesh, muscle and blood to get anything we can use or comprehend. These bones give a rough general structure, but nothing more.
That being said, I think you maybe confusing what he says in this chapter about archetypes with what he says about instinct. They are interdependent but not identical. What you said about archetypes sounds more like instinct, but I would have to go back to the text to really make an argument about it. I am content to suggest and let it go.
He doesn’t mention it here but I am sure he is aware that the word for ‘word’ in the bible in Latin—in the gospel of John, which he is referring to—is logos. This of course is usually though of and translated into English as logic. When he says that ‘the word has become our god’ I am sure that he means that logic—especially scientific logic— has become our god. This is very much in line with what he says in other places in this text. (And I am sure Derrida would have loved that comment.) This is especially true when he starts talking about “our rational philosophy” and its consequences for the shadow, the irrational and the random.
I think I will forego a post of my own on this chapter. The only other thing that I thought was really interesting was what he says at the end about religion being based on an experience of God. But I think this will come back later in the text so I will deal with it then.
Post a Comment
<< Home