Edinger on Jung.
Edward F. Edinger’s
book Ego and Archetype is the result of a decade of thought and writing and is
published by the C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical
Psychology. This
association is dedicated to helping men and women to grow in
conscious awareness of the psychological realities in themselves and society,
find healing and meaning in their lives and greater depth in their
relationships, and to live in response to their discovered sense of purpose.
Jung, says Edinger,
discovered the reality of the psyche by systematically observing the
phenomenology of its manifestations. His greatest contribution lies in the
recognition of the same phenomenology in the manifestations of mankind as a
whole (myth, religion, art and literature) and thus linking the individual
psyche to the collective or archetypal psyche. The process in which an
individual psyche becomes increasingly aware of its origin from,
and its dependence upon this archetypal psyche is called individuation by Jung.
It is important to realize that
instead of projecting the individual psyche out of the collective psyche (which
makes the individual “just” a clone) Jung proposes a true growth process in
which the individual Ego is invited to differentiate from its former embedment
in Self (Ego-Self separation) and to consequently consciously strengthen its
relation with the Self beyond (with its unconscious personal and collective
aspects), thus growing towards a union of Ego and Self on a more and more
conscious level.
Edinger defines: The Self is the ordering and unifying center of
the total psyche (conscious and unconscious; the seat of the objective
identity) just as the ego is the center of the conscious personality (or the
seat of the subjective identity).
Jung has demonstrated that the
Self has a characteristic phenomenology (typical symbolic images called mandalas or themes as wholeness, union of opposites etc.).
The Self is the central source
of life, God.
Since there are two autonomous
centers of psychic being, Self and Ego, the relation between these two centers
(the ego-Self axis) becomes vitally important. A myth can be seen as a symbolic
expression of this Ego-Self relationship. As Jung describes the psychological
development in terms of the changing relation between Ego and Self, themes of
myths in personal dreams (and other manifestations of the psyche) give us a
source of information as to where a person stands in his/her individuation
process.
Jung himself originally
positions individuation in the second half of life; the ego is separated enough
from the Self to experience a split - and then a relation between ego and Self.
Edinger points to the importance of the role of Self
during the early years of life when ego, after a phase of total identification,
develops and progressively disidentifies from Self.
He considers this a part of or at least preliminary to the process of
individuation.
Neumann symbolically describes
the original psychic state as the uroborus (the
tail-eating serpent); the primordial Self prior to the birth of ego
consciousness (note that ego is there in potential, even if it is not
conscious, so not “ego”). In this state there is no other, because there is no
(conscious) self: ego and Self are one (primary ego-Self identity). Michael
Fordham (the diagrams) also sees the Self as the original totality prior to the
ego.
As soon as the ego develops, ego
consciousness appears as a second center of psychic being and the relation
between (the centers of) Ego and Self can be made. Because parts of the
ego-Self identity still remain (residual, in the unconscious area of Self), only
part of the ego-Self axis is conscious. As ego’s relativity becomes more into
awareness (another way of looking at the relation between ego and Self), we
become progressively conscious of the ego-Self axis and (ideally) engage in a
conscious dialectic relationship between ego and Self.
This state is individuation.
The process by which the
developmental stages unfold is like a repetitious alternating cycle; first we
experience the process of separation (dissolving ego’s identification with
Self) as alternations between inflation and alienation. Later in life we experience a state
of individuation as well, when we consciously experience ego’s relative
position to Self. (In Gestalt one would talk about meta-awareness.) According
to Jung it is of utmost importance to maintain the integrity of the ego-Self
axis while progressively differentiating ego from Self.
As we saw our primary state is
one of ego-Self identity. This identification of something small (ego) with
something larger (Self) is what is called inflation: the ego is blown up beyond
the limits of its proper size (we are born in a state of inflation). In this
state ego experiences itself as God, the center of existence. In this state ego
is everything in potentia. It seems logical that we
feel nostalgic for the original state of unconscious wholeness and perfection.
To become conscious (awareness
of the opposites), to bring any reality to birth in Edinger’s
words, one has to give up the puer aeternus archetype. One has to commit the primal crime
(face the conflict, confront the poles), ego has to defy Self. The alienation
(polarization) between ego and Self, between man and God is a natural and
welcome consequence. Images of a fall, an exile, a perpetual torture, are
symbolic representations of this state of alienation. As Self is the central
archetype, it contains and surrounds all other archetype dominants. Edinger says; “behind a shadow or animus problem, or a
parent problem will lurk the dynamism of the Self.’ All problems of alienation
are ultimately an alienation between ego and Self, a
disturbance in the ego-Self relationship.
In writing an essay on the Torah in TS 508 I tried my own
interpretation of the myth of
This God realizes that, in order
to know something (become intimate with it, relate to it), there has to be
duality (ego-Self separation); it is the (unavoidable) key to consciousness. To
become conscious, know “self” there has to be “not-self”; subject and object.
And he knows that with this knowledge there will be good ànd
evil. The knowledge of a separation between self and not self inevitably brings
attachment (mine and thine) and thus fear and
suffering (alienation).
So God tries to hide this key
from his children, just for a little while, to let them have the experience of
Paradise, so they will always be homesick for it, always find the drive within
themselves to find it again (in a more advanced state).
The moment you know, not knowing is not good enough anymore….
It is interesting when Edinger writes: “The
Let me look for a moment at my personal experiences. A small section of
text in an essay for TS 503 seems to fit here: In
all periods of transformation it seems that I had to give up my life as I knew
it, with all its values and certainties, for a newfound vision that was not
even very clear to begin with. Most of the times these “crisisses”
where triggered by the realization that I could not go on the way I was
(life-threatening situations in a way). I had to jump to a
uncertain, different reality, relying on my heart/inner voice to get me where
all would be well again. I sometimes experienced myself to be empty-handed,
vulnerable and utterly lost “between” positions. Paradoxically I sensed an
immense strength there too, giving me the courage to come out of my boundaries
and show my real self. Feelings of surrender to the flow of life, faith in the
underlying truths, faith in myself, and a
determination to grow, are qualities I found in myself to get through these
phases. A listening connection with my essential values, my compassion, my
inner voice, seemed to be a driving force…
I feel I am describing what Jung
means by the awareness of the ego-Self axis (living connection with the Self)
here, where I experience this (unexpected?) source of strength. I deeply
acknowledge the need of this living, day-to-day ego-Self connection
(maintaining the integrity of the axis in Jung’s terms) especially when I am
confronted with a conflict between how I explicitly (consciously) experience my
self (ego) and how I implicitly (unconsciously?) feel myself to be (Self?).
These feelings of not-fitting are surely symptoms (of inflation and)
alienation. In my search for a way to become more conscious, more me, I
recognize and value my inner connection with a transpersonal aspect beyond my
self, my greater self, my Self (God). I notice however that for me this
transpersonal Self is ultimately within the wholeness of the Self to which I
(ego) belong. As such I do not consider Self to be outside myself. Maybe this
suggests inflated thinking??
On the other hand Jung expresses
the same idea when he says: “The ego stands to the Self as the moved to the
mover … the Self … is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves. It is,
so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the
ego”.
Not only do I find the idea of a
meta-position here, but also the concept of ego being ultimately the same
“thing” as Self (ego-Self union in conceptual full consciousness). “I am that I
am”.
The Self is the center and
totality of the psyche and as such able to reconcile all opposites and an organ
of acceptance par exellence. In Edinger’s
view it is this sense of acceptance of the Self that gives the ego its strength
and stability.
I know this to be true. Not only
do I experience this in therapy (as a client and as a therapist), I experience
it as a meaning-giving and in that sense a life-giving reality.
Underlying
our whole outlook is often what seems to be a neurotic conviction of our own
limitations. This tragically contradicts the central truth, of for example
Buddha’s teaching’s, that we are already essentially perfect. When a person can
grasp this concept, make contact with this acceptance par exellence
within, a fundamental trust is generated, a ground in being, that is so
essential to the peace of mind and happiness we all seek.
It reminds me of what Christine Longaker[1] says: “The most important
thing is discovering the deathless, unchanging, innermost essence of our being,
which is already whole, peaceful, open and free. Looking within and getting in touch
with this essence, which is perfect wisdom and infinite compassion, is the
source of the true happiness and well-being for which we have been yearning”.
This quote triggers me to add compassion as a fundamental and healing quality
of Self. When Edinger talks about psychotherapy and
how it offers a person the opportunity to experience acceptance, I deeply
believe we are in fact looking at an element of compassion. The true presence
of the therapist, inviting the client to engage in a
I-Thou dialogue, is in my view an experience resonating in the ego-Self axis,
and thus (awakening awareness of and) strengthening this relation between ego
and Self for both client and therapist. (I worked on a model depicting exactly
this a few years ago so I am thrilled to find it confirmed here). I experience Edinger to be right when he claims that for some clients
this contact with their therapist is probably their only contact with life for
a while, and yes, I believe they can built from there.
Another recognizable aspect Edinger describes is the sense of responsibility towards my
own individual development that has become a real drive (as well as joy) in my
life lately. In my view the realization/awareness of a reality beyond what I
(Ego) consciously experience as reality, the growing consciousness of the
relation between my ego and Self, somehow triggers this response. Being
responsive sounds all of a sudden related to being responsible where Self is
concerned. When my ego communicates/is in a dialectic relationship with Self,
recognizing its (inter)dependence, it is consciously
responsive and I thus become responsible, as an autonomous human being, for my
own processes. Passive acceptance is not longer enough: this dialogue asks me
an alert, active participation. Ignorance in the Buddhist sense is not longer
an available escape; free of the wheel of life my ego needs to stay consciously
(out of free will??) in touch with it’s source and
ultimate state of wholeness.
What about the residual ego-Self
identity? Edinger claims it is (re-)activated by
experiences of acceptance and love (connections to essential values), which
causes ego to strengthen its connection with Self (again a kind of resonance
effect?). The ego then tends to inflate again, passively and later actively
until a new point of conflict/confrontation is reached and ego differentiates
again from Self by an heroic act, provoking rejection
and causing alienation.
Edinger discusses where this repetitious cyclic process can go
wrong.
Jung says that the experience of
the Self is always a defeat for the ego. I think this is paradoxal.
On the one had he is right, because ego experiences itself in that “dark night
of the soul” as being utterly lost (things are meaningless whose meaning have
always been self-evident), a victim of life, depressed beyond deliverance,
unworthy, guilty of sin; in other words totally abandoned, totally alienated
from its roots and therefore defeated by the seemingly unattainable perfection
of Self. This Ego realizes that the ground on which is was built can no longer
hold it, its old picture of what it was does no longer fit. Ego thus
experiences Self as the other, lets go of its
identification with Self: as we saw the only way for us humans to become
conscious.
And then, in its surrender to
the feeling of being lost, detached from all former projections, this ego is
able to encounter and experience an underlying ground in being, Self, the numinosum. A new reality dawns, new meaning sprouts from a
larger whole(ness)/
It is as if ego re-owns the
projections it made upon the other (Self) and can reclaim its lost energy
(consciousness). Ego no longer desperately seeks acceptance from Self but
accepts itself; ego no longer projects wholeness upon Self but reclaims this
wholeness as being its own. I wrote in my essay on Christianity:
When Jesus cries “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” Jesus experiences ultimate
separateness from his Father – and in that moment God has the experience of
being truly human, and thus makes a last step to unite with man, incarnates in
man, bringing deliverance from the former separation (union of the opposites).
Jesus, the man, at the same time, is open to ascend to (unite with) God.
Where do archetypes fit into all this? As we saw, the relationship
between therapist and client (or any I-Thou relationship for that matter) has
its healing and building effects on the ego-Self axis. I called it resonance, I
found it described as osmosis
(Katha I, 2, 7/8) and Edinger thinks this to be a profound nuclear process. As I
understand it, Jung’s contribution here is the discovery that archetypes (or
archetypal manifestations) also evoke this kind of resonance, osmosis or
nuclear process in a person. This is the “magical effect” Jung was talking
about in his Tavistock lectures. The Self is the
central archetype, and thus contains all others. The unconscious psyche
functions in a compensatory way (I accept the concept of an underlying
wholeness (Self) as a self-regulating, homeostatic process) – sending its
messages in archetypal symbols, thus inducing a Self-ego axis “emission”. We need
to be responsive/responsible in relation to Self to receive these corrective
messages, to let the resonance strengthen our ego-Self relation
.
In the larger context of man’s universal need for a relation to the
transpersonal source of being, our religious traditions are to keep the
individuals (ego) related to the deity (Self). All religions are repositories
of transpersonal experience and archetypal images. When the collective psyche
is in a stable state, the vast majority of individuals share a common living
myth or deity (I read Edward Edinger’s book “the creation of consciousness” in which he
discusses Jung’s concept of the living myth). Each individual then projects
his inner God-image (the Self) to the religion or community. The collective
religion then serves as the container of the Self for a multitude of
individuals. The main problem with this collective identification is that, now
the church loses its capacity to carry this projection, the individual loses
his proper inner connection with the Self, his own God-image, his individual
living myth so to say.
Edinger talks about “the breakthrough”
when at a certain point in psychological development, the ego-Self axis
suddenly breaks into conscious view and the ego becomes aware of a centre
beyond itself (transpersonal) to which it is subordinate. Images and other
attributes of the Self are now experienced as separate from and supra-ordinate
to the ego. This experience brings with it the realization that there is an
autonomous inner directiveness, separate from the
ego; everything becomes meaningful even if the ego itself cannot see it.
“Individuation seems to be the innate urge of life to realize itself
consciously.”, writes Edinger,
“The transpersonal life energy,…, uses human consciousness,…, as an instrument
for its own self-realization”.
Edward Edinger starts the next part of the
book by stating that accompanying the decline of traditional religion, there is
increasing evidence of a general psychic disorientation. The result is a
pervasive feeling of meaninglessness and alienation from life. Individuals are
obliged to make their own individual search for meaning in their life, find
their own personal myths.
Individuation becomes their way of life.
Subjective/living meaning refers to a psychological state which can
affirm life; a state which relates us organically to life as a whole and is in
that sense quite different from abstract, objective meaning. Questions
concerning life’s meaning are closely related to those concerning personal
identity: “who am I?”. This living meaning is found
subjectively.
Western society urges the individual to seek life’s meaning in externals
and in objectivity, where it cannot be found in the end. Modern man’s most
urgent need is to discover the reality and value of the inner subjective world
of the psyche, in Jung’s words: Man is in need of a symbolic life.
I experience this to be true. In my practice as a therapist I encounter
people who are, more or less consciously, looking for meaning. I agree with
Jung that we are, at this stage at least, in need of a light to follow; a
personal myth (Cayce’s ideal?) as a means to connect to the otherwise
ungraspable transpersonal wholeness beyond. It is as if we are travelling and
need to see the top of the mountain to know where to go. Sometimes the top is
hidden in mist and sometimes what seemed to be the top is just another ridge
leading us to a top beyond…..
Edinger defines a symbol as a living,
organic entity which acts as a releaser and transformer of psychic energy.
Symbols are spontaneous products of the archetypal psyche; they transmit to the
ego, either consciously or unconsciously, life energy which supports, guides,
and motivates the individual. In understandable words: symbols carry subjective/living
meaning (Jung: symbols are carriers of psychic energy.). The archetypal psyche
is constantly creating a steady stream of living imagery.
Symbols seep into the ego, causing it to identify with them and act them
out. This happens unconsciously or via projection (the individual becomes
fascinated and involved with external objects and activities). Symbols have
valid and legitimate effects only when they serve to change our physic state or
conscious attitude. In other words: we have to accept the concept of an
autonomous reality of the psyche to view the proper function of symbols, that
is to release and transform psychic energy. We have to accept the concept of a
Self (a Self that directs) beyond our limited ego.
The ultimate goal of Jungian psychotherapy is to make the symbolic
process – the “symbols seeping into the ego” from Self conscious. To become
conscious of symbols we first need to know how a symbol behaves when it is
unconscious. The basic proposition is: an unconscious symbol is lived, but not
perceived (not conscious). The ego that identifies itself with the symbolic
image (archetypal psyche) becomes its victim. The individual experiences the
dynamism of that symbol as an urge or need. The archetypal psyche and its
symbols are reflected by the ego: they manifest themselves in the individual.
In psychosynthesis we talk about identification and dis-identification.
Edinger writes: Only when we are willing
to see the symbolic image embedded in our (often instinctive) behaviour, are we
looking for subjective meaning, thus humanizing, spiritualising and
acculturating otherwise raw animal energy. Another way of looking at it: when
we re-connect this behaviour to what humankind does/has always done, and thus
accept it as “human”, it begets a ground in being (not only human, but as a
human part of the whole). The awareness of this connection gives what Jung
calls “living meaning” and as such it affirms life.
The individual is recalled to something he once knew but had forgotten –
his original nature.
This individual is united with humanity on a deeper level, and we saw
that this in itself has a healing effect; almost any difficulty can be borne if
we can discern its meaning.
It is meaninglessness which is the greatest threat to humanity.
Symbolic life in some form is a prerequisite for psychic health, Edinger claims; without it the ego is alienated from its suprapersonal source and falls
victim to a kind of cosmic anxiety.
Edinger suggest the method (process) of
analogy to discover hidden images.
A symptom (Edinger even calls it a degraded symbol)
can be transformed into a symbol through awareness of its archetypal
foundations.
Only by awareness and acceptance of our weakness/shadow do we become
conscious of something beyond ego which supports us. Symbols re-mind, even
re-focus, the individual of, on his suprapersonal
(transpersonal) connections.
The symbol of Christ (suffering deity) for example tells us that the
experience of suffering, weakness and failure belongs to the Self and not just
to the ego. “It is the almost universal mistake of the ego to assume total
personal responsibility for its sufferings and failures”, Edinger
writes. Instead he suggests we recognize our experiences of weakness as
manifestations of the suffering god striving for incarnation. Interesting
thought, especially considering that on another level “taking responsibility
for one’s life” seems of utmost importance. Could it be that in combining these
two notions we arrive at the thought that taking responsibility is ultimately
the same exercise as being “Self-oriented” in Edinger’s
meaning. We can surely use all the help we can get from Jung’s symbols to “get”
what Self is trying to tell us.
The psychological function of the symbol becomes clear: it leads us to
the missing part of the whole man. It relates us to our original totality
(wholeness?). It heals our split, our alienation from life. And since the whole
man is a great deal more than the ego, it relates us to the suprapersonal
forces which are the source of our being and our meaning.
Jung puts at the center of his psychology the
process of realizing oneself as an individual. And, he adds, “One’s name is
written in Heaven!”: one’s unique individuality has a
transpersonal origin and justification for being. Jung calls the Self an
unconscious prefiguration of the ego. The process of
achieving conscious individuality leads to the realization that indeed one’s
name is written in heaven. In a biblical sense the one who names directs (…. and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name, Gen. 2.19). Christ is an example of the Self-oriented
ego, the individuated ego which is conscious of being directed by the Self.
To be related to one’s individuality means to accept all that is
encountered within as meaningful and significant aspects of the single whole, Edinger says. He then elaborates on the experience of being
a windowless Monad (the sole inhabitant of a sealed world). I share this
experience – when I look “out” I realize that the only way of “seeing” is
through my own inner screen. Out and in are relative notions. If we see the
other, we see the other on our screen. The only possible connection between my
separate world and the world “outside” is an experience of Self
as the common ground in being where “I” am in touch with/touch the other. This
experience of connection is in my view a key towards growth… Edinger writes: “we are windowless only in regard to the
details and particulars of our personal life……. But to the extent that we are
related to our individuality as a whole and in its essence, we come into
objective and compassionate relation to others”. So ego is windowless, but the
Self is a window on other worlds of being (the mandala is the major symbolic
expression of this Monad; at its center the window to
the continuum beyond). When I dare to turn that around into “to the extent that
we relate to others (the other) we come into relation to our individuality……….”
I come around to the idea of resonance I mentioned in my last essay.
It seems to me that any
experience in which we connect to the “other” in an essentially compassionate,
inspiring (etc., etc., hard to find the right words) way, we feel the resonance
of this compassion or inspiration in our Ego-Self axis. It sometimes seems to
me that this is who we ultimately are – this compassion, this inspiration, this connecting is a fragment of our Self. The
experience of a piece of “it”
not only heightens our awareness of the axis, but also
strengthens/opens it. There where the other “touches” us, something within us
resonates with something in the other. We recognize something - in my vision an
unconscious segment of Self.
In contact with this quality in
the other we become conscious of this same quality in ourselves. In connecting
to something in the other, we connect with that same thing in ourselves. It is as if we experience ourselves at that
very moment. I believe it is these experiences that give meaning to our lives.
Why else are the compassionate moments so important to us? Why else is our
longing to be loved (and love) so intense? The experience of really connecting
to the other, connects us to ourselves; it is the
purpose of our life. With this experience we become more conscious of who we
essentially are, we become conscious, we grow towards the wholeness that is a
priori ours. ( again in Edinger’s
terms: subjective/living
meaning refers to a psychological state which can affirm life; a state which
relates us organically to life as a whole)
In that sense this love or
compassion (or whatever the name for that feeling of being “touched“, this
connection is) is part of who we intuitively feel we are. In experiencing it,
we can re-own this piece of ourselves. Edinger talks
about self-recollection. This is actually what we say: we are touched –
something touches us in our essence, and because we are touched there, we
become aware of it; we can feel it. Every time I am touched by a person I can
feel my own essence, become conscious of it. I become more conscious,
more me. In terms of Jung’s Ego-Self axis: I (Ego) become conscious of
fragments, segments of Self. In a sense by becoming conscious I conquer Self,
enlarging Ego to become more of Self. In a Fordham diagram this would probably
look like a growing Ego-bubble. Not only does the Ego grow towards
differentiation from Self (less identifying with Self), Ego also grows in
volume: by becoming more conscious it absorbs consciousness and becomes more
and more Self.
Let me try to go back to real
life situations. I do not believe that we only have this kind of “being
touched” experience with other people. In my vision we experience it all the
time – if we are willing to open up to it. I would like to shortly explore
three different possibilities (not excluding many others) of the type of
connection that causes resonance in our Ego-Self axis as Jung describes it:
1. An I-Thou contact with another person
The most obvious experience is probably the contact with another human
being. Being human together is in itself an invitation to growth. How important
it is for us to be accepted for who we are, to be loved and respected for what
we do. It sometimes seems that our whole self-esteem is based on what (we
think) others think about us. Maybe this is a healthy attitude after all….
I love the following quote: The human being needs to be confirmed by
others in order to know itself as a human being - once we have receive this
"Yes" (heavenly bread of self-being) from others, we are then able to
be sufficiently centred in our own existence to stand on our own ground.
(Martin Buber's 1965b in “The knowledge of man”; I
combined two quotes)
Viewed from the angle of this resonance discussion this quote fits
perfectly, but in my perception it shifts from its original (?) meaning: I
could turn it into the notion that a person finds the confirmation of being a
“human being” by experiencing others. It is not so much that we need the other
to confirm us. In the light of this discussion I could say: by meeting the
other we confirm ourselves. Human interconnectedness becomes a key for
evolution. A person is limited in (as a windowless Monad even secluded from)
confirming self.
Of course this mechanism is the main “instrument” I have as a (Gestalt)
therapist: I act as a kind of mirror for my client. On a
explicit level this means that I “give back” what I experience in contact with
a client, thus heightening awareness (the client learns to notice what “she”
is/means in the field we create together). But on a deeper, more implicit level
the client experiences herself in this contact (this becomes more and more
obvious to me), invited to open up to the experience of more Self by my
accepting, compassionate (etc., etc.) presence (as discussed in IIIa).
I recall a night with my favourite sister
2. The experience of
beauty
The experience of beauty ( in nature, music, arts, but also in “touching
moments”) resonates within us if only we are willing to open up to it. Beauty
awakens in us the feeling of joy of being alive. Isn’t it reasonable to
conclude that beauty without can only resonate with beauty within? Is it not so
that by “being touched” by beauty we are touched in our essence, which could
well be beauty at its best, at its completest? Is
this where the arts carry their transpersonal, and
therefore inspirational dimension?
3. The conscious
“recognition” of archetypal features or symbols in one’s life/dream
Jung’s concept that a human being needs a symbolic
life. Jung himself speaks of a transmission of life energy, psychic energy,
from symbol to ego. In this view I could conclude that symbols carry contents
of Self? Where ego identifies with a symbol or
archetype, it takes bits and pieces of this transmission and thus
(re-)integrates contents of Self. In Jung’s view it is
essential to do this consciously, this integrating pieces of Self
into ego/conscious personality; it is how and individual grows towards
individuation.