Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #023

In This Issue:

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #21

Exegesis Digest Mon, 11 Feb 2002

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #21
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:41:55 +1300

Reply to Lorenzo...
 > >I think a symbol is a symbol because someone made it a symbol. It is a
 > >'throwing together' ( >Gk. sum + bollein) between two disparate objects.

How interesting, so it is! My dictionary includes `combine'. Combining identifier term with identified object, I guess. Rather a bonus that the original meaning implies function, indicating semiotic relevance.

 > >On Jung's concept of archetypes, see his-- with Carl Ker/enyi, _Essays
 > >on a Science of Mythology, The myth of the Divine Child and the
 > >Mysteries of Eleusis_ Princeton, Bollingen Series XXI, 1949 rep1959,
 > >1963,1973 (original ed. 1941 Zurich), page 92, where he gives something
 > >of a definition of the term, but also uses the word symbol (unless this
 > >is due to the translator):

Thanks, it was interesting. Helpful in a tangential sort of way!

 > >"The deeper 'layers' of the psyche lose their individual uniqueness as
 > >they retreat farther and farther into darkness. 'Lower down,' that is to
 > >sayas they approach the autonomous functional systems, they become
 > >increasingly collective until they are universalized and extinguished in
 > >the body's materiality, ie, in chemical substances. The body's carbon is
 > >simply carbon. Hence 'at bottom' the psyche is simply the 'world.' In
 > >this sense I hold Ker/enyi to be absolutely right when he say that in
 > >the symbol _the world itself_ is speaking. The more archaic and
 > >'deeper,' that is the more _physiological_, the symbol is, the more
 > >collective and universal, the more 'material' it is. The more abstract,
 > >differentiated, and specific it si, the more its nature approximates to
 > >conscious uniqueness and individuality, the more it sloughs off its
 > >universal character. Having finally attained full consciousness, it runs
 > >the the risk of becoming a mere allegory, which nowhere oversteps the
 > >bounds of conscious comprehension, and is then exposed to all sorts of
 > >attempts at rationalistic and therefore inadequate explanation."
 > >
 > >That is what annoys me about Jung, he says the answer is both yes and no
 > >_and_ either and both and 'or': rather like the young Jesuit at his
 > >final exams at the Gregoriana, when asked to state clearly his opinion
 > >on a dangerous theological point, and as the exam was in Latin the
 > >question was 'sic vel non?' (yes or no), he replied, 'vel...'

heh heh.. (With Libra rising, I can relate to that.) I share your feeling about Jung's style. With me it manifests more as impatience than annoyance. I know the guy isn't as dense as it seems, just is in no hurry to get to any particular point. A contemplative style, rather than analytic, despite being the originator of `analytical psychology'.

Yet the situation is more complex than that. I lurked in alt.psychology.jung for a year - barely made more than one or two contributions. I wanted to gauge Jung's current sociological impact. Was an interesting ecosystem, the culture seemed to require conflict by means of citation. Contributors wielding Jung quotes like swords, some favouring the rapier and some the claymore. The relevance to our topic consisted of citations proving that Jung defined archetypes (or synchronicity) like so in one book or lecture, and then quite differently in another source. In other words, he evolved, and changed his mind. It must have baffled the academic establishment, who were sure only women were allowed to do that. The consequence for those of us seeking precision is some difficulty in hitting the moving target...



End of exegesis Digest V7 #23

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.