Let me begin by saying the following essay has nothing to do with religion. I mention this because my researches on this evocative trio of words, when conducted through the Google box, throw up two kinds of website – either the new agey type or the biblical scripture type. If either of these are your bag, I apologise, but I tend to approach spiritual matters from the psychological perspective and this entry is no exception.
So,…
I was introduced to spiritual matters through the writings of Carl Jung, who managed to convince me of the objective reality of the spiritual dimension. He did this by plunging me into a dialog with the contents of my dreams and thereby equating the spiritual with the imaginary world.
Normally , if we imagine something, we do not think of it in literal terms – we do not grant it the status of a tangible reality. Whether what we think of comes from dreams, hallucinations or waking reveries, we tell ourselves they are just images we created in our heads and they are not important. To imagine things in our heads is all right for children, but if we’re still doing it when we grow up we are either a poet or there’s something wrong with us. This is the contemporary, rational viewpoint, and it is well embedded in the Western zeitgeist. Scientists, religious agnostics and pious churchmen alike would all look with suspicion upon anyone who took their imaginings seriously, or attempted to argue that they possessed any form of autonomous, objective reality,… that the characters they met in dreams were in any way real.
Yet it was just such an idea that developed in early Greek culture, in the days of Plato, and became the basis of a philosophy that shaped the minds of generations of intellectuals, right through to what might be called the end of the Romantic period in the early nineteenth century. At this point, the so called “Enlightenment” of Scientific Rationalism finally forced it out of any serious intellectual debate and relegated it instead to the underground journals of the mystics, the die-hard romantic poets, and the new age gurus. But for a long time before this, it had formed the binding thread of the secretive practice of western alchemy, and it survives as such intact up to the present day. To the uninitiated alchemy the ludicrous practice of attempting to transmute base metals into Gold, but this is a trite and overly literal interpretation of the philosopher’s art. There was considerably more to it, and if the alchemists had been found out they would have been burned as witches.
Jung was more than a dreamer, more than a plagiarist regurgitating the works of past generations. As a psychiatrist, working in a mental asylum, he encountered people who were mentally lost,… irrational beyond hope of remedy, and all Jung could do was listen to their apparently incoherent ravings. However, he sometimes noticed patterns in these ravings, and eventually realised these ramblings were in fact the retelling of ancient myths, that the voices speaking through these poor lost souls possessed a Daemonic quality – not “demonic” in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religious sense, but Daemonic in the Platonic sense, in the sense of the old philosophers, the alchemists.
The mythological symbols and patterns of ancient man were alive, in an independent sense, in a substratum of the unconscious minds of people whose consciousness was apparently broken and therefore unable to filter out the bizarre imagery. This led Jung to formulate a model of the human psyche which included a collective aspect to the unconscious mind, through which we were all linked. What Jung seemed to have uncovered was evidence of what the alchemists knew as the Anima Mundi, the world soul.
The world soul, if real, suggests that the one thing underpinning all of reality, as well as the totality of the psyche of each and every one of us is a deep unconscious stratum of thought. It is teeming with pattern, symbols and myth, and it exists independently of us. We do not think it into being. It came before us. It was already there when we arrived, and became conscious of ourselves in a physical reality.
Biological evolution has given us a physical form with which we obviously identify very strongly. We are fond of our bodies, and sexually attracted to the bodies of our fellow humans. The human form then is impressed upon us as a primary image. When we dream, we encounter psychic energies which we interpret in the symbolic language we understand and therefore grant form to these energies as other human beings, male, female, sometimes distorted, or modified in ways both beautiful and repulsive. Other images we encounter in reality – our landscapes, creatures,…. all of these things are embedded in our minds and used to form meaningful pictures from the seething mass of symbols in the unconscious mind. We see a dragon in our dreams, but it is not a dragon in a literal sense, more something that has suggested to us the form a dragon. We need to be careful then in our interpretation of imaginary things, cautious of reading only the literal interpretation of what we apparently see and should try instead to get at the meaning behind the image, try to interpret the symbol, for therein lies the truth of it.
These ideas have held me in thrall for many years now. Unfortunately, Jung, though popular in his lifetime, is not for the fainthearted, and you are unlikely to find any of his works in the high street today – more likely it will be trite self help books, if you’re lucky enough to find a bookshop at all. But if you have the time and you’re serious about uncovering some of the more curious aspects of the nature of reality, then I suggest you look him up on Amazon. Start with his “Selected Writings” or “Dreams Memories and Reflections”, but avoid “Mysterium”, which reads more like the Magnum Opus of a wizard than any mortal man.
Modern learned writers on this subject are hard to find. The self help industry is massive and many of the writings you will discover are just reworkings of ideas from Jung, the Theosophists, Blavatsky, and a long list of other post Romantic mystics. Their works are suspiciously self serving, being more about making money for the gurus by selling books and seminars than attempting to sincerely further our knowledge of this important subject.
One exception I stumbled upon recently are the works of Patrick Harpur, whose Philosopher’s Secret Fire, Compete Guide to the Soul and Mercurius, arrested my attention in the summer of 2010, and had me thinking back on my interpretation of Jung. Harpur picks up on Jung’s works without slavishly worshipping them, and his books have granted me a fresh perspective on ideas that have haunted me for a decade, allowing me I think to move on a little further towards a better understanding of these things. I ground to a halt with Jung some years ago, because I think I fell into the trap of wanting to take him too literally. But through the work of Harpur, I’ve begun to feel things moving again, and I’m very glad indeed that I stumbled across him. To tread the spiritual path outside of the mainstream, we all need to be alchemists.
So,… soul, spirit, self,…
These are words bandied about in books and poems and seem to be used interchangeably – meaning the same thing, but what that thing is is never made clear. There is a clear difference however, and understanding it helps us to understand both the nature of the human psyche and our place in reality, because there can be no understanding of reality without understanding the psyche.
To begin then, the Self is the totality of the human psyche. It consists of both who we think we are, and who we truly are, but are not necessarily aware of being. In other words it consists of our conscious awareness, and our unconscious. This dichotomy also divides the psyche into the two opposed elements, the yin and the yang of it, or the spirit and the soul.
We feel Soul as a stirring inside of us. Soul’s nature is feminine, regardless of our gender and her domain is the unconscious which itself is rooted in the collective unconscious, or the soul of the world, the Anima Mundi. The soul bears aspects that are both shared and individual. It is our souls that connect us to each other. When we look at another person and feel an attraction, an affinity, it is through the aegis of our soul.
The unconscious aspect of the psyche is vast in comparison with the conscious, and it is from here our imaginary life swells. We sit down one day, take up a pen and begin to doodle a pattern, or a human character forms in our mind’s eye, and we write down a few lines of dialogue for a story. We do not consciously think these things into being. They appear spontaneously. They are at best teased up from the unconscious, then given a coherent shape by the conscious mind as it tries to make sense of them. When I write my stories, I do not base them on real things that have happened to me and can pluck from memory. I do not base my characters on people I know. They come from my unconscious as images ready formed, and I puzzle over them, I try to fit them into a pattern that conveys something rounded and satisfying. Sometimes it works and the story finds its way into the public domain. Sometimes it doesn’t and the unsolved puzzle remains on the hard drive of my computer, perhaps to await the one piece that my unconscious is witholding from me.
Spirit on the other hand is a conscious energy. We say a man or a woman has “spirit”. They are animated, driven, lively, beguling. Spirit is the urge to explore, to create, it is the drive behind the quest, be it physical or spiritual. It is the desire to learn, to understand, to broaden the horizons of our thoughts our beliefs, our understanding of the world. It is the animating drive behind my fingers as I type, but it is the unconscious, and my inner dialogue with Soul that I trust to deliver up the answers to the questions Spirit asks.
And it works, but only if I am patient and respectful of Soul’s wishes. Soul is mysterious, dark, sinking down into the sea of being, the dark seething cloud of the Anima Mundi. She is Yin. Spirit however, is soaring, bright, thrusting. It is Yang. It is also always a work in progress.
As a conscious energy, Spirit has much in common with the Jungian term “Ego”. Ego gets a bad press. “He’s so Egotistical!” It has become a byword for combative self importance, and a pathalogical belief in one’s superiority above others. It’s perhaps understandable then that some self help books teach us that Ego must be broken at all costs if we are to enter into the spiritual bliss of enlightement. But I think this goes too far. We are here in physical reality for a reason. Spirit is the name of our vehicle, Soul our navigator. Without Ego we would sink into a state of catatonic listlessness, our physical bodies wasting, our minds permanently arrested by daydreams. Without Ego, our Spirits can be broken.
A hard ego though is a brittle thing. Like heated steel quenched in water, it becomes very hard, but is also easily broken when tested. Ego is better when it’s tempered by reheating a little and cooling slowly. The tempering flame of the spirit is communion with the soul. Taking her seriously allows us to heal up the deepst cracks of the psyche, to heal neuroses and to develop a more complete self, a self that is flexible, resilient, respectful of both physical and non-physical realty,… and thereby content.
You say that you don’t base your characters on people you know, but if we share a collective soul, then you must know them. You just aren’t aware of the connection. You may have brushed against them on a train or picked up something of their individual animas in something they wrote or spoke.
What did Jung consider to be the cause of insanity? Is it of biological origin (disease process), simply a chemical imbalance in the brain, or something out of whack in the individual soul? What did he think of the concept of evil? Is it shared collectively?
Hi Walk2Write. Good thinking. Yes, you’re right. Perhaps I should have said I don’t “consciously” base my characters on real people. Brushing past someone in a coffee shop? Sure, I’ve done that. We do pick up subliminal traces don’t we? The unconscious eye is a master of observation and symbolic interpretation, but since we don’t know these people, the characters we impose upon them must be projected from inside of us. Something about that person fits a mysterious pattern inside of us, or a pattern that swells up from the collective, seeking recognition through them.
You know Jung? I love Jung – you could perhaps explain him to me! 🙂
On the causes of insanity, if we’re talking about schizophrenia – my impression is that he was undecided, but inspite of his mystical/religious approach to psychology, he favoured the more prosaic medical explanation of this dreadful malaise. He certainly put the the voices heard by schizophrenics down to his archetypes that had somehow broken through into consciousness, overwhelming it. Regarding how they broke through he was less clear, at one point describing it as a possible disease of the brain and, later on, a toxin released into the brain by stress that produced the weakness and punched a hole clean through to the unconcious.
On milder forms of mental illness, things like neuroses, depression, anxiety,… my understanding is that he was more definite in saying these were caused by our inability to assimilate what the archetypes were telling us, due to personal circumstances, societal pressures, stress. Having incubated some of these things myself at various points, I have to say a reading of Jung and the application of his ideas has brought about a significant change for the better in my own outlook, or maybe that’s just age and the slow grind of experience rubbing off all my sharp corners.
On the subject of evil, my understanding of Jung is that he believed it was a collective thing, that we all share in it at some deeper level of the psyche, and that the worst thing any of us can do is adopt a holier than thou attitude when confronted by evidence of evil, or in reading of the evil done by others, tell ourselves we are personally incapable of doing “something like that.” This is my interpretation of what Christians mean when they say we’re all “born in sin”.
I think it’s central to Jung, this notion of accepting our darker side, our darker thoughts. Suppressing our shadow, denying that we can think bad things from time to time, can set us up with deep seated neuroses, bad dreams, or worse: render us vulnerable to doing the bad things we think we are incapable of doing.
I’m churning all this stuff over at the moment, hence my blog, so thanks for your insightful comment – it gave me a reason to go back and think a bit more about things. Sorry to go an a bit; I need to learn how to be more concise.
Good to hear from you as always.
Best wishes, and regards to SAM
Michael
It seems that you don’t need any help with Jung. You know him well, much better than I do, and now you’ve convinced me that he’s worth a second look. Any writer worth her salt needs a dash of psychological perspective in her work.
Please, don’t be concise. It’s a symptom of microwave mentality that’s–in my opinion–leading communication, especially literature, down a destructive path. Sound bites: ugh!
Have a good week.
Hi Walk2write. Thanks, the world does seem to be developing a problem with its attention span.
If you like Jung, you may also be interested in the Demon Muse website http://www.demonmuse.com which I’ve recently discovered. It seems to have the psychological angle on writing pretty much covered.
Michael
Thanks for the link. I visited the site, and it’s great! Hope you’re having a wonderful week.
Great article. Food for thought. Jung and Harpur are favourites of mine. My ‘two bob’s worth’ would be that astrology, something which Jung also used, offers insight into what is at work in us and the world. Richard Tarnas who wrote The Passion of the Western Mind and Cosmos and Psyche is worth reading on this topic and the influence of astrological archetypes at personal and universal levels.
Mental illness of all kinds is part of our journey of learning and becoming. Much which is termed mental illness is only so because mental wellness is so narrowly defined in a world where scientific materialism rules.
Stanislav Grof has written some excellent books and done some excellent work on psychological crises and experiences as being part of a process of spiritual emergence – Spiritual Emergency as he called it.
There is no doubt that some people are more sensitive, have ‘thin skins’ in an emotional, psychological and psychic sense and are more likely to be lost in the worlds of archetypal energies where visions, voices and energies can drown or destroy.
It is all fascinating and Jung led the way to this exploration of our inner world although many others have now taken up his ‘flag’ and are pushing on through what is probably the greatest adventure this world offers us.
Hello.
I’ve been trying to ignore Jung’s use of astrology for the best part of a decade now. I was just too set against it, from a rational point of view – as paradoxical as that might seem given my own love affair with the I Ching, which I came to through Jung’s endorsement of it. Recently though I’ve been trying to dissolve my prejudice and understand astrology more from the archetypal perspective, as Jung saw it, but also from the scientific (evidence pointing to disturbances in the Earth’s geomagnetic field being caused by even the most distant planetary alignments – Percy Seymore.)
I’d not heard of Richard Tarnas, so thank you for that reference. I’ll definitely look him up – it sounds like his work might be just the connection I’ve been looking for on this.
I agree with what you say about mental illness. I have some personal experience of it and find that dark episodes are usually the precursor to a positive change in psychological, spiritual or philosophical outlook. I also think the over-willingness to prescribe medication in order to straight jacket us back into that narrow definition of “normal”, can be damaging in the longer term, suppressing what actually needs time to be allowed to emerge and assimilated naturally.
Thanks also for the reference to Grof. It’s been on my mind for a while to delve more deeply into his writings.
Thank you for your very kind and thought provoking comment.
Regards
Michael