Re: Complementation in psychology

August 1, 2012

Mats,I refer to your paper, The Complementarian Self, The Twofold Self, for its full treatment.One of the challenges is that at some point it is necessary to at least decide, and, maybe next determine, how applicable the conceptions of Analytic(al) Psychology are to the actualities of human mental functioning and behavior.

Your paper grants too much to Jung's scientism. Jung didn't much understand " experiential " Buddhism, and I'd concur he didn't care to understand, (and forgive me for coining a term,) apophatic yogas.

In this, he was stuck in the box of his limited* understanding. Given this, it seems to me the understanding of the transformation of self via rigorous deployment of apophatic yogas would better exist as a modern understanding, and this is possible, but leaves Jung behind, (rather than leaning on Jung, et al.)

regards,

*Almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning, after the ensuing fifty years of cognitive psychology, social psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology.

In fact this is conceded to as a matter of the current commitment of Analytic(al) psychologists to be almost 100% uninterested in the normative research and methodical verification of the psychological understanding they are nevertheless clinically applying.

---------------------------------------------------------squareone-learning.comsquareone-learning.com/blog/

the entire 'kit and kaboodle'squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

August 1, 2012

Evidently, Jung did not " understand " apophatic mysticism, or the 'via negativa',

regardless if it had its roots in the East or in the West. He rejected it out of

hand and said that it " had nothing to do with individuation " . That's what I have

been arguing, that he threw the child out with the bathwater.

But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an accurate

framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an hideous

underestimation of Jungian psychology. It has proved an extremely powerful

method of understanding dreams, fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious

phenomena. I find it immensely useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one

can come to grips with the unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on

the conscious ego is inestimable.

Concerning Jung and the East. There is an article in International Journal of

Jungian Studies, Issue 1, 2010, about Jung's negative view of yoga. " Revisiting

Jung's dialogue with yoga: observations from transpersonal psychology " by Leon

Schlamm.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19409050903498337

The article examine two claims by Jung: (1) that the European practice of yoga

leads either to repression of unconscious contents by consciousness or to

psychotic states in which consciousness is overwhelmed by the unconscious; (2)

Jung's objection to the claim of Indian non-dualist traditions that the ego can

be completely dissolved in, or absorbed by, the transcendental self.

[...]

" [Jung] argued that the identification of the self-conscious subject with, or

its disappearance within, a universal consciousness celebrated by Eastern

canonical traditions must be equated with unconsciousness and that exclusion,

selection, and discrimination are the root and essence of consciousness. Jung

conceded that the practice of yoga can produce to a remarkable extension of

consciousness, but it cannot lead to an egoless state, because there must always

be something or somebody left over - the infinitesimal ego, the knowing 'I' - to

experience the realization that there is no distinction between subject and

object. If there is no knowing subject, the non-dual position cannot be stated

as an object of knowledge. "

[...]

" [Transpersonal psychologist Welwood] has complained that Jung could not

allow for egoless awareness as a developmental step beyond ego, seeing it only

as a step backward toward a more primitive state of mind, a dissolution of

consciousness, a position inconsistent with the experience of most meditators

that meditation practice heightens and sharpens consciousness. Offering a

critique of Jung's dualistic and theistic model of psychological and spiritual

development, Welwood insists that meditation is a royal road to non-dualistic

experience, rather than to a subterranean unconscious mind, revealing awareness

of a unified field where divisions between subject and object, the inner world

and outer reality, and consciousness and the unconscious, are recognised as

possessing only conventional significance, but from the perspective of a higher

order of truth of Buddhism simply do not exist. Such divisions, including Jung's

division between ego and unconscious, are, for Welwood, symptomatic of the

confused state of mind known in Buddhism as samsara " (Welwood, 2002).

[...]

" Mark Epstein, for example, has argued that, from the Buddhist perspective, it

is mistake to view egolessness as a developmental stage beyond the ego. During

transpersonal states of consciousness the ego is not abandoned, nor completely

transcended; rather, the spiritual practitioner realises that the ego lacks

concrete existence. It is not the ego that disappears; rather the belief in the

ego's solidity, the identification with the ego's representations, is abandoned

in the realisation of egolessness during states of ordinary waking

consciousness " (Epstein, 1993).

Mats Winther

>

> Mats,

>

> I refer to your paper, The Complementarian Self, The Twofold Self, for its

> full treatment.

>

> One of the challenges is that at some point it is necessary to at least

> decide, and, maybe next determine, how applicable the conceptions of

> Analytic(al) Psychology are to the actualities of human mental functioning

> and behavior.

>

> Your paper grants too much to Jung's scientism.

>

> Jung didn't much understand " experiential " Buddhism, and I'd concur he

> didn't care to understand, (and forgive me for coining a term,) *apophatic

> yogas*.

>

> In this, he was stuck in the box of his limited* understanding.

>

> Given this, it seems to me the understanding of the transformation of self

> via rigorous deployment of apophatic yogas would better exist as a modern

> understanding, and this is possible, but leaves Jung behind, (rather than

> leaning on Jung, et al.)

>

> regards,

>

> *Almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an accurate framework

> for understanding human mental functioning, after the ensuing fifty years

> of cognitive psychology, social psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology.

>

> In fact this is conceded to as a matter of the current commitment of

> Analytic(al) psychologists to be almost 100% uninterested in the normative

> research and methodical verification of the psychological understanding

> they are nevertheless clinically applying.

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------

> squareone-learning.com

> squareone-learning.com/blog/

>

> the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

>

August 1, 2012

Dear ,

In other words, is it a myth or iis it the truth. If it is a myth, I'm no quite

sure why we would want to bother with it.

regards,

Dan

>

> >

> > Mats,

> >

>

> For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools

> with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary

> and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.

>

> You write:

>

> >

> > But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an

> > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an

> > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

> >

> Hideous?

>

> > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,

> > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely

> > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with the

> > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is

> > inestimable.

> >

> I do not question the " use value " of what you term Jungian psychology.

>

> Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the

> framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those

> effects are encountered.

>

> The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do

> with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have

> to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human

> mental functioning?

>

> For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.

>

> regards,

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------

> squareone-learning.com

> squareone-learning.com/blog/

>

> the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

>

August 1, 2012

It works. It is not a belief-system, as you infer, although there are such

overtones due to an inclination towards paganism. Jungian psychology provides

largely the correct model of the mental functioning of the unconscious. Why does

it work? I discuss it in this article:

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/animism.htm

The unconscious constantly produces animistic motives, because this is how our

archaic unconscious " thinks " . The archetype is an expression of the animistic

economy of the unconscious. This explains the great success of the archetypal

notion in understanding the unconscious. The concept of the archetype in modern

psychology has its roots in animistic mythological thinking, which is still part

and parcel of our unconscious psychology.

Platonism and Jungian psychology are indebted to animism. It is justified

regardless of the nature of the archetype. Therefore, the ontology of the

archetype is not an urgent issue. However, the Platonic paradigm can trigger an

animistic regression, exemplified by naive New Age notions. That's why I have

argued that the trinitarian tradition of mysticism presents a way out for gone

astray Jungians and New Agers.

Mats Winther

>

> >

> > Mats,

> >

>

> For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools

> with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary

> and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.

>

> You write:

>

> >

> > But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an

> > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an

> > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

> >

> Hideous?

>

> > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,

> > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely

> > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with the

> > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is

> > inestimable.

> >

> I do not question the " use value " of what you term Jungian psychology.

>

> Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the

> framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those

> effects are encountered.

>

> The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do

> with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have

> to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human

> mental functioning?

>

> For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.

>

> regards,

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------

> squareone-learning.com

> squareone-learning.com/blog/

>

> the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

>

August 1, 2012

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Mats,

> > > >

> > >

> > > For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools

> > > with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary

> > > and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.

> > >

> > > You write:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an

> > > > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an

> > > > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

> > > >

> > > Hideous?

> > >

> > > > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,

> > > > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely

> > > > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with

the

> > > > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is

> > > > inestimable.

> > > >

> > > I do not question the " use value " of what you term Jungian psychology.

> > >

> > > Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the

> > > framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those

> > > effects are encountered.

> > >

> > > The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do

> > > with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have

> > > to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human

> > > mental functioning?

> > >

> > > For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------------------------------

> > > squareone-learning.com

> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/

> > >

> > > the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

> > >

> >

>

August 1, 2012

It is not a " belief " . Just because I cannot put an archetype under a microscope

and show it to you, doesn't mean that it is a belief. Archetypes aren't

molecules. Jungian psychology isn't hard science. Nor is anything you say hard

science. You present absolutely no facts and no logical factors that can gainsay

anything in Jungian psychology. You are just philosophizing. There is no

scientific evidence behind your critique of Jungian psychology.

You are also pontificating. You insult me repeatedly by saying that I am a

devotee of mere belief, meaning that I subscribe blindly to a credo. But I, if

anyone, have severely criticized the ideological mind-set which lacks foundation

in instinctual nature and in the unconscious. The unconscious psyche is also

nature. It is also an empirical reality. I observe this empirical reality

continually, and I have verified that the Jungian concept of reality is both

truthful and useful. I have however found that the theory doesn't work in some

cases. I have written extensive critical articles on the failings of Jungian

psychology, where it does not give a satisfactory account of the reality of the

psyche.

So how can I be a Jungian believer, then, if I am capable of finding faults in

it? If I am stuck in a " largely subjective domain " , how come I can criticize the

framework and suggest improvements to it? After all, I have formulated a

critique of Jungian psychology, but you have not.

The point is that Jungian psychology " works " . It works in interpreting dreams

and myths. I have verified this time and time again. So I know that it works,

but you don't, because you don't know Jungian psychology. You haven't tried it

out. I also know that Jungian therapy works. It succeeds in helping people. It's

like mathematics. Mathematics works, but nobody knows why. Cosmologists are

baffled by the fact that they can use mathematics to understand what took place

13 billion years ago. Scientists make use of numbers, but nobody knows what

numbers are. Nobody has put a number under a microscope and verified its

existence. They just work.

This means that the hard sciences builds on similar premises as Jungian

psychology, namely on " archetypes " , as it were. Scientists say that the

potential energy is equal to the kinetic energy and set up the equation: mgy =

½mv2. It is very useful. Empirical data confirms this mathematical equation all

the time! Yet, nobody has been able to put " energy " in a glass jar and observed

it. Many physicists believe that there is no such thing as energy. Electric

energy equals electrons, heat energy equals photons, etc. Nobody knows Whether

there really exist such entities as energy, number, etc. But the universe

functions " as if " they existed.

Likewise, the unconscious functions " as if " there were archetypes. The

scientific motivation for all these concepts is that they " work " . What " works "

is regarded as true, regardless if the concept has any tangible sense of

reality attached to it. It doesn't matter if you cannot taste, watch, or touch

numbers or energy. Entities of reality needn't have this concrete

reality-status. This is according to the modern scientific paradigm.

The conclusion is that not only do you lack knowledge in the realm of Jungian

psychology, you are lacking in the understanding of the scientific paradigm.

Your philosophical stance is a modern disease. People who spin themselves into a

cocoon of philosophical theory and bury themselves in Heidegger, Derrida,

Wittgenstein, and whatnot, resort to a psychological defence against reality.

You really ought to read this sobering article: 'The Waning of the Light: The

Eclipse of Philosophy' The Review of Metaphysics 57, Sept 2003, 105-133, is a

sobering article by H. Schlagel. All philosophers should read it. It is

a poignant critique of the modern philosophical project, and its subjectivistic

leanings, since Cartesius.

http://tinyurl.com/cceectk

Mats Winther

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Mats,

> > > >

> > >

> > > For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools

> > > with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary

> > > and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.

> > >

> > > You write:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an

> > > > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an

> > > > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

> > > >

> > > Hideous?

> > >

> > > > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,

> > > > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely

> > > > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with

the

> > > > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is

> > > > inestimable.

> > > >

> > > I do not question the " use value " of what you term Jungian psychology.

> > >

> > > Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the

> > > framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those

> > > effects are encountered.

> > >

> > > The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do

> > > with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have

> > > to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human

> > > mental functioning?

> > >

> > > For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > ---------------------------------------------------------

> > > squareone-learning.com

> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/

> > >

> > > the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

> > >

> >

>

August 2, 2012

On this view, the self is essentially heterogenous, consisting of two or more

commensurate aspects of self that are however irreconcilable opposites,

symbolized by Horus and Seth, the light and dark ternarius, or the winged and

wingless dragon in alchemy. Whereas integration pertains to the transformations

of the ego, 'complementation' refers to the transformations of the self. In the

former process, energy flows from the unconscious into the ego system, whereas

in the latter the flow is reversed. Of course, transformations in the self can

induce transformations in the ego.

It is kind of logical. Why shouldn't the self be able to undergo transformation,

relatively independent of consciousness?

Mats Winther

>

> Psychotherapy focuses on the integration of unconscious complexes. Carl Jung

has applied this great finding on individuation, as the consecutive integration

of archetypal complexes. Arguably, it does not suffice as method of relation to

the unconscious. Individuation in Jungian terms is lopsided, as it takes

exception to the trinitarian ideal of individuation, which includes the

reclusive life. There is too much focus on integration. To rectify this, I

suggest a notion of 'complementation'. It would mean to put focus on the

transformation of the *self*, rather than the transformation of consciousness.

Integration implies that the autonomous unconscious content " sacrifices " itself

for the boon of the conscious world. It's a notorious motif in the history of

religion, where it pertains to the sacrifice and death of the deity. However, in

religious history mankind also makes a payback, an atonement sacrifice. This

gives life back to the gods, which is equally essential. In the modern era, it

pertains to devotional practices, i.e. to devote conscious time and energy to

God. The disciple sacrifices his/her conscious energy to the unconscious, in

meditation and contemplation, for instance.

>

> The individuant becomes more or less a reclusive, in some sense of the word.

Such a sacrifice of conscious energy is necessary to the growth and

transformation of the self. I denote it 'complementation' as I view it as a slow

process whereby the self collects and constellates its complementary nature from

the ingredients of the chaotic unconscious, aided by a mild conscious focus. It

corresponds to the transformations in the alchemical vessel. In the life of

modern Westerners, a recurrent theme is to abandon worldly life and set out on a

spiritual journey, typically involving reclusion and contemplation. The

proselyte is often gone for years, after which he/she sometimes decides to

return. A central theme in Buddhism is the ideal of the spiritual seeker who,

after having achieved enlightenment, returns to the world. The Jungian process

of individuation cannot really account for such a radical shift of ideals, since

the Jungian self is 'one'. Spiritual and worldly life are supposed to be

integrated, and not separated in time. Against this, I have proposed a model in

which the self comprises two complementary aspects. See my article " The

Complementarian Self " :

> http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/compself.htm

>

> In my article on " Thanatos " I discuss complementation further:

> http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/thanatos.htm

>

> Mats Winther

>

August 2, 2012

You seem to have an intellectual problem. I said that many scientists believe

that there is *no* such entity as " energy " . Still, they gladly make use of the

concept. So they discuss it and insert it in equations. But they don't think it

exists, as such. So they aren't believers, they are disbelievers. My point is

that science is not about scientific proof of the kind that you are looking for.

You tell me to present facts to prove that the Jungian model corresponds to the

psychic reality. But it isn't doable. Please tell the scientists to present

facts to the effect that energy and numbers exist. Otherwise these entities are

to be regarded as fantasies, and part of a belief system. That's how you reason.

But to know that science works, and to know that Jungian psychology works, you

must make use of it, read the literature, and analyse dreams. You must verify

that it works and has predictive capacity.

I don't understand what you are doing in this group as you reject Jungian

psychology altogether, without having any insight into it. What's the point?

Mats Winther

>

> Mats,

>

> Thanks for your response.

>

> You write:

>

> *M:Empirical data confirms this mathematical equation all the time! Yet,

> nobody has been able to put " energy " in a glass jar and observed it. Many

> physicists believe that there is no such thing as energy. *

>

> As I said, belief in the positive, belief in the negative sense; still

> belief--in your own darn words! Yes, you experience something that works

> and that is the substance of your verification. I have no problem with that

> at all.

>

> What we're needing to discover is a method to demonstrate, for example,

> that I, another subject, possess this so-called Jungian psychology. You

> haven't offered me anything on that problem at all. Remember, my challenge

> to you is to establish that the structure of *global* human psychology,

> mind, psyche, whatever you choose to call it, is explicitly the structure

> given in what you call Jungian Psychology.

>

> You have established it provides the structure of your mind.

>

> ***

>

> *M: meaning that I subscribe blindly to a credo.*

>

> I didn't say this of course and how odd to conjure a straw man.

>

> *M: I observe this empirical reality continually, and I have verified that

> the Jungian concept of reality is both truthful and useful.*

>

> As I will continue to remind you, I understand what you say here, but this

> can do no duty with respect to the larger problem.

>

> *M: So how can I be a Jungian believer, then, if I am capable of finding

> faults in it? If I am stuck in a " largely subjective domain " , how come I

> can criticize the framework and suggest improvements to it?*

>

> What does have to do with anything? Let's rephrase what you say here: I

> find fault, I criticize, I suggest improvement, so, what am I?

>

> *M: The point is that Jungian psychology " works " . It works in interpreting

> dreams and myths. I have verified this time and time again.

>

> *Why do you make this same point over and over again? It provides the

> original point of departure. You have verified that it works for you.

> Others obviously have done the same too. But, none of those *local

> verifications* address my original challenge.

> *

> M:So I know that it works, but you don't, because you don't know Jungian

> psychology. You haven't tried it out. I also know that Jungian therapy

> works. *

>

> My goodness, you prove my point. This is like fireworks! You have no

> evidence about either assertion you've introduced here about me, somebody

> you do not know. And, you especially have no evidence about the simple new

> form of my argument, which is this: *how do you establish that

> non-believers possess the psyche you have supposed everybody possesses?*

>

> Your answer so far is: it works for me. Well, we know it worked for others

> too. All sorts of stuff works for people. I endorse workability. However,

> it doesn't address the challenge we're discussing.

>

> ***

>

> Now, to your side points that don't shed any light on anything.

>

> *M:It's like mathematics. Mathematics works, but nobody knows why.

> Cosmologists are baffled by the fact that they can use mathematics to

> understand what took place 13 billion years ago. Scientists make use of

> numbers, but nobody knows what numbers are. Nobody has put a number under a

> microscope and verified its existence. They just work. *

>

> You wouldn't know anything about my background, about my circle of academic

> friends, and about my colleagues. Right?

>

> Let's suppose a thought problem. Let's assume for the purposes of it that I

> might consider sharing what you wrote here with a handful of prominent

> cosmologists, physicists, philosophers of science, and, above all and

> especially, philosphers of mathematics/meta-mathematics? Say, I contemplate

> doing so using local favored resources at CWRU here in Cleveland.

>

> Do you think I *would*, or *should*, do so?

>

> Incidentally, let's suppose every now and then an intelligent high school

> senior, gifted in calculus, has an epiphany and says to herself, " I wonder

> why it is that math works in the first place? "

>

> She comes to me and says, how would I answer this question, ? Mats,

> do you think I should save her a bunch of time and tell her, " Nobody knows

> why it works. "

>

> ***

>

> Back to Jung.

>

> *M: But the universe functions " as if " they existed.*

>

> This is not an argument. I can substitute all sorts of things for each and

> every concept in Jungian psychology, and then make this same remark. " As

> if " can't do any duty at all. 'Cars locomote *as if* there are hamsters

> running a wheel under the hood.'

>

> *M: Empirical data confirms this mathematical equation all the time! Yet,

> nobody has been able to put " energy " in a glass jar and observed it.*

>

> The mathematical equation is useful but it also exists within a series of

> dependent, ordered, substantial, existent, frameworks--none of which have

> at their foundation being able to put something/anything in a jar. The

> actuality of observing energy does have standing of course.

>

> *M: The scientific motivation for all these concepts is that they " work " . *

>

> How many times do I have remind you, (and, heck, I'm a ian (!)) that *I'm

> okay with verification for your own purposes being rooted to it working for

> you and some others.* I am compelled to qualify my affirmation because that

> same method of verification has well known, obvious, limitations.

>

> On the other hand, the first person to mention *science* in our discussion

> was you. Because you are unaware of the actual context on my end of our

> discussion, that you mention science first is both audacious and amusing.

>

> It's enough for me to say: I see *The scientific motivation for all these

> concepts is that they " work " . *to be hiding an obvious tautology.

>

> ***

>

> And now, comes the regression into your primary process (Freud,) via

> outright insulting me.

> *

> M: The conclusion is that not only do you lack knowledge in the realm of

> Jungian psychology, you are lacking in the understanding of the scientific

> paradigm. Your philosophical stance is a modern disease. People who spin

> themselves into a cocoon of philosophical theory and bury themselves in

> Heidegger, Derrida, Wittgenstein, and whatnot, resort to a psychological

> defence against reality.*

>

> Let's assume you are correct, based in the evidence you've gained from my

> disagreeing with you, that I in fact/actually lack knowledge of Jungian

> psychology; lack understanding of the scientific paradigm. The only

> advantage on my end is that I can also refer to many other person's

> estimation of same, based in their own more lengthy and expert experience

> of, ummm, me.

>

> Still, Mats, you wouldn't then be able to describe my philosophical stance,

> a stance that I could render in a few sentences. Furthermore, this: *resort

> to a psychological defence against reality. *conceals the terms for another

> tautology, you know the one where you use the psychology you defend as

> " real " to argue against someone disagreeing with you about its reality.

>

> I do not know you. Imagine my surprise to learn that you, to the contrary,

> are willing to assert that you know me so well that you know my

> philosophical stance, you know my disease, and even know about a curative

> paper I could read!

>

> And in the context, amazingly, is your implicit understanding of your own

> superior authority in matters of psychology and what you call the paradigm

> of science. And, yet, at this point in our discussion, what you end with,

> is, a psychological diagnosis!

>

> One thing about your diagnosis, is that it isn't put in the terms of

> Jungian diagnosis.

>

> You have yet to establish any non-reflexive truth claim with respect to

> verifying the hypothesis that the global structure of human mind is the

> structure identified in, as you term it, " Jungian psychology. "

>

> You have established that it works for you. You have brought up 'science.'

> I won't beg the obvious question. Yet. I recommend we now set aside the

> intersubjective scheme for verification since it's worthless with respect

> to the hypothesis on our table.

>

> ***

>

> I play on a softball team every week that includes a bunch of scientists,

> but I will especially look forward to laying your suppositions on my fellow

> outfielder , an astronomer and cosmologist.

>

> In any case, try to lean back away from lashing out at me.

>

> regards,

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------

> squareone-learning.com

> squareone-learning.com/blog/

>

> the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

>

August 3, 2012

I have now added a section on complementation in my article on the

complementarian self.

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/compself.htm

" [...] The ego is a dictator that enslaves psychic content. In fairytales there

is the well-known motif of being " taken into the mountain " . In Scandinavian

fairytales it is called " bergtagen " (lit. 'mountain-taken'). Characters in

fairytales are captured by the mountain, swallowed by it wholly or party.

Occasionally they are stuck with their head, etc. Sometimes they are stuck in a

thorny thicket that surrounds the mountain, transfixed on the thorns. Fairytales

depict psychic life from the perspective of the unconscious in order to

compensate the one-eyed conscious outlook. This evil mountain (glass mountain,

golden mountain) portrays the insatiable over-extended ego from the viewpoint of

the unconscious. This covetous, egotistic, attitude is severely criticized in

spiritual teachings, not the least in traditional Christianity, while it is

inimical to the spontaneity and naturalness of psychic life. The ego should give

glory to God and refrain from glorifying itself by taking the credit for all the

blessings that are bestowed upon it. Vainglory and self-worship is condemned.

But if the psychoanalytic paradigm is taken to its extremes, in terms of the

integrative effort, as in Edinger's psychology, the ego has become an

evil mountain, inimical to spiritual and instinctual unconscious life. In

Christian theology, pride and arrogance is destructive to the workings of the

Holy Spirit in the soul.

Complementation, which is denoted 'circular distillation' in medieval alchemy,

builds on a different attitude of consciousness. The ego rids itself of its

typical illnesses, namely covetousness and pride. A meek and unassuming attitude

means that the conscious light burns with less intensity, yet with a clear

flame. The ego is no longer fixated on self-satisfaction. It now exalts God

instead of itself, and no longer views itself as self-sufficient. Although the

ego is now less energetic, it maintains focus on the unconscious process, which

serves to sustain the circular distillation by the addition of a mild heat. The

alchemists always said that over-heating the vessel ruins the process. It is

imperative to maintain a mild and continuous heat. Some say that the light of

the moon is enough. They assert, again and again, that the artifex must maintain

a truly pious attitude, otherwise the operation has no chance of success [...] "

Mats Winther

> >

> > Psychotherapy focuses on the integration of unconscious complexes. Carl Jung