Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: jung and the collective unconscious
ThoughtVent > Sciences > Psychology
mz30
would like to here any thoughts on this i find the book very deep and difficult to fathom


QUOTE
THE CONCEPT OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS
By C. G. Jung

Probably none of my empirical concepts has met with so much misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what follows I shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept, (2) a description of what it means for psychology, (3) an explanation of the method of proof, and (4) an example.

1. Definition

The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Whereas the personal unconscious consists for the most part of complexes, the content of the collective unconscious is made up essentially of archetypes.

The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them "motifs"; in the psychology of primitives they correspond to Levy-Bruh's concept of "representations collectives," and in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and Mauss as "categories of the imagination." Adolf Bastian long ago called them "elementary" or primordial thoughts." From these references it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype - literally a pre-existent form - does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowledge.

My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.

Jung cautions that, "One must, for the sake of accuracy, distinguish between 'archetype' and 'archetypal ideas.' The archetype as such is a hypothetical and irrepresentable model, something like the pattern of behavior in biology." ("On the Nature of the Psyche")



(Excerpted from The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious by C. G. Jung.)
Iodine
Oh mz, you really know how to start a forum!! psychology is a very interesting subject but I sure didn't expect it to start with Jung!! He was one heavy thinker!! I printed the page off and will re-read it when I get the time to concentrate on what I'm reading. In the mean time we'll see if we get any other brave souls to tackle this. smile.gif

Okay all of you brainiacs, get busy!! blink.gif
Zarathustra
"This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents."

I do not think that Jung really meant that the CU was inherited in the same sense that hair colour is inherited. But if you look at it from another perspective (say Heidegger's), there is embedded in language and society, an "always-already" that seems to shape and define a common reality.

Z
mz30
QUOTE (Zarathustra @ Aug 21 2007, 08:23 PM) *
"This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents."

I do not think that Jung really meant that the CU was inherited in the same sense that hair colour is inherited. But if you look at it from another perspective (say Heidegger's's), there is embedded in language and society, an "always-already" that seems to shape and define a common reality.

Z


can you give me a link to where Heidegger has anything to do with the collective unconcious?
Zarathustra
I was making an analogy between the "always-already" in Heidegger and Jung's collective unconscious, not making a claim that Heidegger discussed Jung's idea or made any connexion between the two himself; his account of Dasein seems to preclude any use of the Jungian account of the "psyche." Jung actually seems to have a greater affinity with Plato, since his archetypes function much like Plato's "forms" or "ideas."
Z
mz30
just a quick reply to zarathustra

i have just read my reply to your post and it sounded like i was being a tad rude .this was not my intention and i apologise.
what i was trying to say was do you have any links regarding Heidegger and his works as i know very little about him.

me and the wife were having a meal and a couple of bottles of wine when i typed it and i have a tendency to not read my posts properley before i submit them,my apologies again if you thought i was being rude wink.gif
Zarathustra
Not to worry, it didn't even cross my mind.

Reading Heidegger is pretty tough going---ludicity is not one of his hallmarks.Even with a couple of commentaries handy, his major work, Being and Time takes some dedication not to mention time to wade through.
His more "popular" works are almost as difficult, but "What is called Thinking?" (Harper, 1968) or his "Introduction to Metaphysics" (Yale,2000) are better places to start. Or I would recommend to discussion of his philosophy:
"Heidegger and the Problem of Knowledge", by Guignon (Hackett,1983)
"Being-in-the-World: A commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Divison 1", by Dreyfus (MIT, 1991)

Even more interesting, and certainly far more readable, is Schultz's "The Structures of the Life-World" (Northwestern, 1973). This takes many of H's topics and themes about our knowledge and inter-action with the world and develops them in very interesting and important ways.
Z
mz30
Well just picked up a copy of Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time.
Will tell you how i go with it .
Looks like i will have to get my thinking head on,as i am sure it will be hard to digest thumbup2.gif
Zarathustra
Being and Time is notoriously difficult even for philosophy graduate students. Heidegger is often not the most lucid of writers, and having a commentary really helps. Heidegger is asking his readers to view the world in a different way, so his language (lots of hyphenated words) and the phrases he uses to describe things require almost a different mental dictionary. Then too, he generally skirts around a problem and slowly moves to the center, much like a leaf at the edge of a whirlpool.
Good luck!
Z
mrs c
Apparently Jung studied ancient mythology and reckoned the rambings of insance people were very similiar to myths... one patient had described seeing a penis coming out of the centre of the sun and producing the wind.. Jung later read about a pre-christian religion which described the very same thing - he reckoned that since the patient could not have know about this, it must be due to an inherited memory, a forgotton memory of our forefathers buried deep in our subconscious. His thesis is basically stating that we have two levels (or types) of sub-consciousness... images that are created as a result of our own experiences and then forgotton, relegated to the sub-conscious, are complexes; whereas the images that were already there, which we inherited from our forefathers and have never been actually 'seen' or experienced, are archetypes. I think that's it anyway unsure.gif
mrs c
Sorry guys, my spelling is atrocious - that first line should read ..... 'ramblings of insane people' ... (bet Freud would make something of that mistake) .... and when I said archetypes represent images that have never been seen or experienced, I meant by us (they obviously must have been seen or experienced at some point!).

Next time I put a post on in the early hours of the morning, I will make sure I check it carefully first !! blush.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.