Archetypes, Essentialism, and Nominalism
Aug 3, 2018 15:26:13 GMT -5 by umbilicalsphere
Alerith, jelle, and 2 more like this
Post by umbilicalsphere on Aug 3, 2018 15:26:13 GMT -5
This is a meaty topic that connects many interesting threads. Lets dive in
The second class of real you propose requires further decomposition - "that which the observer experiences" becomes "that which the observer experiences that is filtered by archetypal-symbolic patterning" and "that which the observer experiences that is unfiltered by archetypal-symbolic patterning".
Such archetypal dynamics are not exactly contingent on the observer, since they have been inherited from an evolutionary process, and contain elements which are common throughout humanity, which can be investigated within the psyche of each being if they choose to make that inner journey. As such, they are objective subjective realities, of a different form of reality to raw qualia (which are also objective subjective realities, if taken in-themselves), given their role in being the underlying structuring principles of meaning, psychological organisation and libidnal psychic flow.
Humans are Embodied Beings
Human nature is environmental and genetic simultaneously. For example the qualities of the Anima are those embedded in our genetics --wide hips, lush lips, round breasts, elusiveness, submissive behavior, curvatures -- but those qualities were embedded into our genetics because we selected them through sexual selection-- just as we are actively doing in each generation. So the archetypes are extracted from the attributes of real people, and real people (through generations) collectively encode the archetypes within us.
Darwinian natural selection works in both directions. We encode our behaviors into our genes over time, but who we are (and what human nature is/contains) is determined by those genes too. We are creating ourselves, and each newborn is both a participant and creator of what it means to be human, as well as a result of that.
For my own take on the essentialism of archetypes, I dont consider them to have existed since the dawn of time, but I do consider them to be irreducible qualities which have their own wholeness. An archetype is somewhat analogous to an organ - it evolves over the history of a species, to meet certain adaptational demands via natural and sexual selection. These adaptational demands exist at the level of psycho-social reality, thus giving rise to personality-like organising principles, as opposed to adaptational demands that exist at the level of raw physiology, which give rise to processes like lungs, intestines etc. Just as the network of organs compose key interacting processes that sustain the organism at the physiological level, the network of archetypes composes key interacting processes at the psychological level, which enable an organism to interact meaningfully and coherently with its environment. Similar to how organs can become damaged or disordered from their optimal function, archetypes can become manifest in disfigured/diseased forms. This is a key point of consequence in relation to whether we subscribe to Archetypes as real or merely concepts used to bind together certain experiences of outer social realities to make sense of them. The whole of Jungian Archetypal psychology hinges on this - if you throw out the reality of Archetypes as objective psychic forces/structuring principles, you throw out the core meaning of Jungs work on archetypes. This in itself isnt a reason to believe or disbelieve it, just something I wanted to point out.
To continue the point on archetypes functioning optimally or in diseased states (what jung called complexes). A diseased archetype tends to split into a passive/active shadow dichotomy, for example the splintering of the King Archetype into the Tyrant (active shadow - what jung described as Possession) and the Weakling (passive shadow - what jung described as Repression). The active shadow is created through identification of the ego with the archetype and projection of the passive shadow onto others, which generally leads to manias, paranoias and omnipotent denial of limitations. Breakdown of perception-action feedback loops which enable effective self-reflection, self-regulation, learning, and real relationships with others. The limitation in question being denied is the passive shadow, in this case the Weakling, which became shattered by traumatic experiences of when ones power and sovereignty was catastrophically undermined. Whenever an archetype is split, we get the instability of enantriodromia which indicates a rift is in place in the psyche which is suboptimal in relation to the driving force of the Self (Jungian Self) towards wholeness. The ever present pressure towards wholeness that the Self imparts to the psyche is the cause of such enantiordomia, which seeks to reconnect the split halves of an archetype within the container of awareness, have the traumas processed, and tread the middle path between repression and possession - consciousness that contextualises and balances the expression of archetypes in relation to the true, deep, integrated motives of the Self.
To continue the point on archetypes functioning optimally or in diseased states (what jung called complexes). A diseased archetype tends to split into a passive/active shadow dichotomy, for example the splintering of the King Archetype into the Tyrant (active shadow - what jung described as Possession) and the Weakling (passive shadow - what jung described as Repression). The active shadow is created through identification of the ego with the archetype and projection of the passive shadow onto others, which generally leads to manias, paranoias and omnipotent denial of limitations. Breakdown of perception-action feedback loops which enable effective self-reflection, self-regulation, learning, and real relationships with others. The limitation in question being denied is the passive shadow, in this case the Weakling, which became shattered by traumatic experiences of when ones power and sovereignty was catastrophically undermined. Whenever an archetype is split, we get the instability of enantriodromia which indicates a rift is in place in the psyche which is suboptimal in relation to the driving force of the Self (Jungian Self) towards wholeness. The ever present pressure towards wholeness that the Self imparts to the psyche is the cause of such enantiordomia, which seeks to reconnect the split halves of an archetype within the container of awareness, have the traumas processed, and tread the middle path between repression and possession - consciousness that contextualises and balances the expression of archetypes in relation to the true, deep, integrated motives of the Self.
I suspect that recognition of the reality of archetypes may hinge on direct encounters with them within ones own psyche, typically based on such processes as dream-work, active imagination etc. Fantasies which play out in consciousness reveal the inner patterning of our complexes, for example, a 'bad anima' complex can create subtle visions of rejection or assault from the inner symbol of the feminine, given clothing in the form of whoever in our life happens to have taken on the anima projection at a certain time. Psychoanalysis and Jungian Analysis are geared towards healing the archetypal patterns which have become programmed into dysfunctional, one-sided complexes by life traumas, causing us to unconsciously attract and replay those same dramas. That is how the psychic energy/libido flows within, so that is what draws attention and attraction without. The inner archetypal/symbolic/fantasy landscape is the gateway into the psychosocial realm. Genes therefore also encode for archetypal symbolic dynamics, which become the filter of our experienced reality, which can be modified by trauma/inner healing, as a flexibly and unfortunately damageable mediator between the genetic and the external environment. If we say that archetypes are merely concepts we use to bind together certain perceptions of classes of behaviours in social reality, none of this makes any sense and archetypally or psychoanalytically grounded therapy would have no meaning or utility.
I see different classes of "real."
One is: "That which is not contingent on the observer"
Another is: "That which the observer experiences"
For example, if a schizophrenic dies his imaginary characters will die with them. They may have been cognitively real, but not physically so. That's one kind of "real" that exists.
I do think the schizophrenic's imaginary characters have a type of reality, but it's the same as the color Red.
One is: "That which is not contingent on the observer"
Another is: "That which the observer experiences"
For example, if a schizophrenic dies his imaginary characters will die with them. They may have been cognitively real, but not physically so. That's one kind of "real" that exists.
I do think the schizophrenic's imaginary characters have a type of reality, but it's the same as the color Red.
The second class of real you propose requires further decomposition - "that which the observer experiences" becomes "that which the observer experiences that is filtered by archetypal-symbolic patterning" and "that which the observer experiences that is unfiltered by archetypal-symbolic patterning".
An example of the first form, an archetypal experience, is looking into the eyes of a romantic lover - the raw sensory data of them has the anima (or animus) projected onto it, so they take on a special charge, they take on an existence as a deeply symbolically meaningful entity, who now carries the charge of the anima, the patterning of the particular anima complex one has come to have from life experience (and how ones mind related to that experience, eg overwhelmed thus leading to anima fracture or able to tolerate it sufficiently leading to a balanced form of the archetype), and the set of mental, emotional and somatic reactions which have accrued to that symbol. They are no longer a collection of irrelevant sense-data but a living character in the story of ones unfolding narrative existence, with its historical fixations and movements towards the future.
An example of the second form, a non-archetypal experience, would be looking at something that your mind considers mostly irrelevant to you, like the carpet on the floor, or a cloud in the sky. There is no innate symbolic patterning that makes the carpet relevant to the psyche, therefore it has no charge, draws no attraction or repulsion of attention or emotion. Most stimuli most of the time fall into this category, hence we dont pay much attention to most incoming sensory data. If everything was dripping with archetypal significance we'd probably be overwhelmed and wouldnt know what to pay attention to. These experiences are basically processed as raw qualia and not typically filtered very far up the neurological processing chain, which is structured by archetypal-symbolic forms. The archetypal experience does by contrast generate the enmeshment of inner reality with the outer reality and a meaningful interaction can then take place, as mediated by the inner symbolic world.
Such archetypal dynamics are not exactly contingent on the observer, since they have been inherited from an evolutionary process, and contain elements which are common throughout humanity, which can be investigated within the psyche of each being if they choose to make that inner journey. As such, they are objective subjective realities, of a different form of reality to raw qualia (which are also objective subjective realities, if taken in-themselves), given their role in being the underlying structuring principles of meaning, psychological organisation and libidnal psychic flow.