Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Some thoughts re: the solar-phallic man (was Re: Noll's "The Cult of Jung", Academic Standards)

Expand Messages
  • Mermaid
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. 333, first, I have searched the archives to locate previous discussions regarding the Solar-Phallic Man but
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 10, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

      333, first, I have searched the archives to locate previous discussions
      regarding the Solar-Phallic Man but failed (perhaps I typed in the wrong
      search words), so I apologize if my thoughts here are a repetition of
      any of those put forth in the past. Secondly, I am using a few of the
      questions posed to Lloyd Keane in a previous message to broach the
      subject of the Solar-Phallic Man.

      333 to Lloyd Keane: >>what is the basis for the support of the theory
      of collective unconscious?<<

      Jung argues that his theory of the archetypes composing the collective
      unconscious is founded on an empirical basis. First, it should be said
      that Jung's theory of archetypes is inextricably bound with his theory
      of the collective unconscious. Briefly, an archetype is an image or
      pattern shared by the human race can emerge within the psyche of a given
      individual. The collective unconscious exists at a level deeper than the
      personal unconscious. Jung theorizes that there is a collective
      unconscious via his theory of archetypes which are trans-cultural and
      trans-historical in nature -- the collective unconscious contains the
      archetypes. According to Jung, the existence of the archetypes is based
      on empirical evidence. His years of examining the dreams of clients
      revealed that the symbols, etc., of the dreams were symbols, etc. found
      throughout the world's myths and religions. The archetypes themselves
      are ambivalent in quality, that is, there are positive and negative
      aspects to them. The point of working with the archetypes which may
      have emerged in a given individual, that is, bringing the previously
      unconscious archetypal content into conscious awareness (thereby
      bridging the personal and transpersonal) is personal growth. (reference:
      A Guided Tour of the Collected Works of Jung, Edward Hopcke, 1989, pp.

      333 to Lloyd Keane: >>>> do you agree that it has been misused to
      promote cultural imperialism?<<

      not exactly sure what all you mean here, please say more. I don't know
      Jung's psychology well enough to determine whether or not the archetypes
      (as understood, interpreted, and elaborated upon by Jung and some
      others) which have received the most 'press' as it were are (such as
      mother, father, shadow, trickster, anima/animus, and so forth) are
      indeed trans-cultural and trans-personal. The usefulness of the theory's
      application may be limited -- e.g., to the modern western psyche. Jung
      was acquainted with Eastern religions and cultures but how well was he
      acquainted? There may be aspects of these archetypal symbols, figures,
      and patterns that have been omitted, that is, the archetypes as spelled
      out by Jung may be too generalized. Regarding the sun/man connection,
      there are indeed many examples of this in myth form and in religious
      imagery. It could be argued however that there also exists a sun/woman
      archetype as found, for example, in the Shinto faith -- the sun goddess
      Amaterasu. Interestingly, 'the sun' in German is 'Die Sonne' (feminine
      article) not Der Sonne (masculine article) and 'the moon' is 'Der Mond'
      not Die Mond. As far as I know, Jung didn't account for the exceptions
      above. Perhaps there are more exceptions.

      However, I'd like to add that generalizations such as gold/sun/masculine
      and silver/moon/female occur in western alchemy and can serve a
      practical purpose if each of us male and female indeed have both male
      and female aspects within. (It's a pet belief of mine that we each have
      the entire tree of life within. I don't know if others are working with
      the Achadian tree of life or a version of it and so cannot/will not
      speak for anyone else here -- but my personal tree of life has a night
      side.) I think such distinctions (noted above) are useful as
      identifying the sides enables the development of each and also makes
      possible the task of balancing them -- paraphrasing the alchemists here:
      only separated things can unite. To use another example, the right
      brain which is associated with imagery, intuition, and sometimes
      genderized as female is just as important as the left brain, which
      associated with the verbal, the rational, and so forth and is sometimes
      genderized as male. If one side of a polarity is considered more
      important than another, well then there is a problem...

      As I mentioned in a previous post, much of the world's literature is
      marred by racism, sexism, and other atrocities. The best one can do is
      to take what is useful from the past and present and not be racist,
      sexist, etc. oneself. Regarding Jung and sexism, here's a link to
      Jeffrey Mishlove's interview of Jean Shinoda Bolen:

      I like Bolen's work.

      333 to Lloyd Keane:>>do you believe that the incident of the
      Solar-Phallic Man constitutes some kind of irrefutable evidence of the
      accuracy of the theory? if the latter indeed be true, then why should
      any kind of scientific evidence be accepted as a 'confirmation' of a
      theory? isn't this bad science which becomes cult dogmatism?<<

      I don't think that the Solar-Phallic Man incident alone refutes the
      theory though I believe it is an incident which reflects negligence and
      a lack of scientific (and perhaps personal) integrity on the part of
      Jung. Again, Jung claims that the theory of the collective unconscious
      is founded on empirical data. The question is, did Jung collect enough
      data for a solid theory? How much is enough for a solid theory?

      Love is the law, love under will
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.