July 23, 1999
Archetypes, zeitgeists and Psyche
age: 30
gender: male
Hello,
Archetypes and zeitgiests can be said to be born by the
affirmed hereditary translation of human experience through
time. Animals learn through association and repeated
"ritual" thus creating a hereditary "inclination"
and expression of human experience.
Certainly with each season a reacurring celestial
pattern can be seen. However, saying astrology is
the impetus of a constellated archetype seems
tenuous at best.
It seems mainly that horoscopes, et al, can act
as devices of personal reflection and discovery.
though any thought or writing, be it horoscopes,
seuss, ann landers, or stephen king can provide
the same function.
If one is looking for a truth, however, it is not
within a writing, but in one's self. Anything external
is only a "way" or a method to understanding since
everything external shaped the development of the
human psyche up to this point.
My question: Do you see this pairing as a "tool" or
"method" (Such as psychology, structured religon, etc)
or as _the_ definitive explanation for the psyche?
Thanks
I don't think I understand the question (specifically, what pairing are you referring to?) but I seriously appreciate your asking. I very much disagree with the idea that everything external shaped the development of the human psyche. The way I understand Jung to explain Psyche...it refers to the totality of who we are...which includes that which is Unconscious along with what is in consciousness. Psyche exists, in that sense, beyond space and time and in it's totality is not shaped only by the here and now...as important and vital as that is. Personal reflection (the absolute requirement for growth of consciousness) depends not so much on the mirror used...I believe that I understand your point about Stephen King. Metaphor is metaphor (is Symbol) and THAT is the object that is seen...but it does seem to take a desire to look beneath the literal surface of the image reflected in order for Introspection / Reflection to uncover not only the symbols of the Self...but what they might mean in terms of experience. If one only sees an Archetype portrayed in Dr. Seuss and never relates it to one's own experience with a kind of "Aha!"...no harm is done...but the degree of growth of consciousness is proportionately smaller...the more sophisticated we hold ourselves (as conscious ego) to be. ANY symbol is the impetus of a constellated Archetype...that is how Archetypes come into consciousness. Without an experience and it's symbolic representation (so that the Archetype can be recognized)...we simply remain submerged in the collective consciousness, which is lower...the more collective we allow ourselves to be.
There is no definitive explanation for Psyche because there is no way to stand outside of Psyche and get an objective view. We can only look at the history of human consciousness and speculate as intelligently as possible on where it might be heading...but that remains unknown for the most part. We can also look at the Symbols that are revealed to us in order to get an inkling of what lies within our Soul. The problem is that Psyche is looking at Psyche and cannot define itself to itself. For that to occur requires an Other. (We simply can't jump over our own shadow.) Only those born many generations from now can supply that particular viewpoint, just as we can look at the work of the alchemists and see where they were not quite up to speed on their own projections.
kristo
kristo's Dream Work / Daily Horoscope / kristo's Psychic Work