I interpret literature, or reflect on philosophical ideas, in an exploratory manner. The focus here is on developing insights, and some of it is speculative. Occasionally, I consolidate it into longer essays.
The two-sided archetype of meaning or Sinn seems an unlikely benefactor. After all, is not what this archetype represents something that should best be provided by consciousness itself, particularly in the conscious use of the ‘rational’ psychological functions?
In the midst of our chaotic life processes, as we experience them day by day, there is a pre-existent, hidden meaning. That meaning, or Sinn, is an archetype.
According to Jung, the archetypes of the collective unconscious are psychological patterns. An archetype thus represents how we (human beings) typically live through and experience certain situations. What kind of situations?
It is well known that Jung felt some special affinity with the mediaeval world in general, and with alchemy in particular. He saw connections there with the core of the psychology of the individuum.
People are complex: every human being has a dark side — a demonic aspect — in addition to the more acceptable mask they display towards their social surroundings.
Jung’s essay on synchronicities is centered around the notion of causality: he points out certain phenomena that (according to him) cannot be causally explained, and in general he claims that the law of causality is insufficient as a principle for scientific explanation. What does he actually mean by terms such as ‘causal’ and 'causality'?
The notion of projection is a broad umbrella which covers a variety of different ways in which unconscious contents might appear, to a subject, as something they notice in the external world. Presumably, some archetypal structures are best expressed in personified form, whereas others lend themselves to a different, more abstract representation: as relationships, as connections.
Jung says that synchronistic phenomena appear when an archetype of the collective unconscious is triggered (or ‘constellated’). He also points out that this usually goes along with projections. Interestingly, the mirror theory of eros arrives at a similar result.
When a person becomes infatuated, their soul is dominated by the phantasm that represents the loved one; the phantasm cannibalizes the entire psyche of the subject. In such a case, the unconscious image (the phantasm) acquires an astonishing power and autonomy.
A word about this “spiritual mirror” business. It is called spiritual because in Ficino’s views, the notion of “spirit” is central, and among other things, the spirit acts as a mirror through which the soul can access what the senses take in from the external world. The setup is similar to an old-fashioned camera, with the eye (and the other senses) corresponding to the lens, the psyche (the...
Leif Frenzel is a writer and independent researcher. He has a background in philosophy, literature, music, and information technology.