To make that leap would require Jung having a dream - day or night type - or vision, of before the split of the anima and animus – why and when did they split … if they ever did – from them having 4 arms and legs and 2 faces, or into the conscious and unconscious?
Of course 4 arms and legs is just a metaphor, to explain why humans grow up and look, search, for a matching mate. Like the song, we can feel that someone else makes us whole … “you complete me” ; it’s beautiful and wondrous, when it happens … as long as it lasts.
But I’ve given up on finding my other half. I can be WHOLE without it, without her. Presently my anima and animus aren’t speaking ; she’s too impulsive and wild. So I prefer my trusty ol’ animus to get me thru. I love my anima, but it’s unrequited.
So is resolving this conflict between that buried in my unconscious, my anima, and my conscious animus, the way to Wholeness? Can I then become Whole if I make love to myself ; my anima is hot, and runs around naked all the time … but can be a bitch at times … when my animus doesn’t take a bath for a few days ; she says my animus stinks. Damn, it’s hard being Whole. It might be more than it’s worth.
It would be a violation of professional ethics for me to give you psychological advise here. Sorry. Here’s a link to some general information on the subject: frithluton.com/articles/anima/
Perhaps you may also find this passage from Jung’s Red Book relevant and helpful:
I don’t know why I do the things I do. But thanks to CJ I now know who’s to blame : Anima. She’s a real troublemaker. Sometimes it’s hard to keep up with her wild unrestrained appetites.
And apparently CJ had a lesbian anima with quite the appetite, given all his infidelities. He stated that he was looking for “Anima woman”, and Toni Wolff fit the bill. But still, his lesbian anima couldn’t resist the Jungfrauen.
As an aside, earlier today I tried to tell a guy about anima and animus, and that he has a feminine influence in his unconscious, He looked at me like I was crazy. He’d never heard of such a thing, and didn’t buy into it at all. And that’s true for most of the masses around the world, past and present. Most people now, and everyone in the not too distant past, lived their lives without knowing anything about CJ’s theories concerning the unconscious and consciousness, anima and animus.
Maybe that’s been the problem all along. Most have never assimilated their unconscious and brought it out into the light of consciousness … and so never reached the state of Wholeness. That’s why human history has been the way that it’s been, and in the present state of affairs in the world today. Jung speaks of the union of the contents of the unconsciousness with consciousness - resulting in the widening of consciousness. Would everyone reaching this state, the state of Wholeness, bring about a kind of paradise? Would humankind be more God like, if they brought their unconsciousness into union with their consciousness? Was CJ trying to bring about Nietzsche’s Übermensch, thru psychology?
In other respects:
I’m just learning this stuff about Jung and his theories. I don’t know about anyone else, but reading Felix’s link, and other sources, I sense some misogyny, or chauvinism, lurking in CJ’s description of Anima.
I’m glad you referenced the location in the Red Book of this quote. If read in context it provides a more rounded picture of this snippet. Simplemindedness? I resemble that remark.
New interpretations have been offered of Jung’s concepts of anima and animus by post-Jungian and archetypal psychologists. One example: beliefnet.com/wellness/heal … e-age.aspx Some feminists deplore the anima/ animus concept because it pigeonholes characteristics according to gender. Jung’s views sometimes reflect the attitudes towards women of his time.
The images that come to us spontaneously have not passed through a filter of political correctness. They may reveal unconscious desires, fears and prejudices we have about the opposite sex, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer persons.
Von Franz characterized the male experience of the anima as occurring in four stages:
Many cultures have considered the Solar as symbolizing the masculine, and the Lunar as the feminine. Post-Jungian psychologists are seeking ways to characterize “the feminine” that don’t fall into the trap of a cultural stereotype, and same with “the masculine”. They aim to liberate these categories in a way that does justice to the diverse ways we have of being male and female, and of being human.
In The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype, 1955, analytical psychologist Eric Neumann observed that the revitalization of the feminine archetype was essential to correct the one-sided patriarchal development of male intellectual consciousness largely responsible for “the peril of the present day”. Neumann said
Finally, it should said that static binary image of the psyche as anima and animus is inadequate. The unconscious psyche is too dynamic and polymorphous for that. Picture, rather, the waves of the sexual Yin and Yang shape-shifting into one another.
Is the coronavirus making posters out here crazy? There seems to be incoherent gobbledygook lately on this thread. Or I don’t know the code words. I’m pretty new out here. Are there broken bots out here?
Could be your brain has gotten rusty. Or you don’t have much of one to begin with.
You came in to this thread with very low order ideas derailing a serous discussion. Now, left to your idiotic devices unhindered (I chose to step out of the way of your brainfarting) youve grown the arrogance of the stupid.
Definition of Twee: chiefly British: affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint such a theme might sound twee or corny — The Times Literary Supplement (London)
Definition of G: originally hip hop slang that means “Gangster”, but it has become more common. It still has an urban hip hop feel, and now denotes a good friend or buddy.
The balancing-act between Twee and G is that precarious place of a passive-aggressive nature, which arises through doubt of another’s intention in discourse.
We were discussing dynamics of the soul in terms of British slang and the Kabbalah. That seems relevant and meaningful to me. What is the path between justice and mercy, between passivity and aggression, between order and chaos? It’s the Self, the Tao, the way of the hero and the sage. It animates mythology and our dreams. Blessed is the one who finds it, and having found it, walks on it toward wholeness.
I’m taking Fixed Cross’s advice and bowing out. I think I’m whole already anyway, despite FC’s projection on me from his disturbed unconsciousness. I’ll be lurking to see if anyone contributes more than gobbledygook.
I don’t think Fixed Cross was advising you to bow out. One person’s gobbledygook is another’s phenomenological experience. It’s not meaningless to the experiencer. From the standpoint of the inquirer, it’s a matter of finding out what others mean.
Here’s a footnote to Jung’s Red Book by Jung scholar Sonu Shamdasani. It’s about the literary history of divine madness. I figure if anyone is still following this thread at this point, they might be interested in this subject. Already acquainted with it through portals 1, 2, and 3, I discovered a rich vein of divine madness about a year-and-a-half ago through portal number 4.
The principle use of divine madness as described above, is to produce powerful conscious psychic images. Unless there is a modicum of “madness” these images may be repressed by the ego defenses. Typically, as we see often in philosophical dialogue, they are covered over, obfuscated by abstract language. What passes for reason is too often rationalization, intellectualization which disguises motivation. Language may veil the images that would reveal the deep Self. It’s a challenge to turn it around.
“Each of us is a Spark related to our Source through a thread of light. It is part of the Spark which eventually will be the path through which the Spark will travel back to its Source. That is why we are told that man is the path itself. The Spark has different names on its path of development. For example, when it is really captured in the physical body and totally identified with it, we call it the “sleeping spark,” or the reflection. When it awakens and wants to be aware of its powers and destination, we call it the “pilgrim.” When it arrives on the mental plane and has highly organized the three bodies we call it a “personality.” When it further advances and harmonizes all its activities in the light of the Inner Guide, we call it the unfolding human soul. When it releases the Solar Angel and stands on its own, we call it a Soul or an Arhat. When it advances to higher realms, we call it the Spiritual Triad, then the Self or the Monad or the Divine Spark.”
Torkom Saraydarian, Dynamics of the Soul
When this “spark” travels its path, a human being is manifested. Does this make sense to anyone?
This seems to make sense to me, and at the time when I was steeped in Christianity, I did appear quite mad to many people. Today I have noticed that I have sought safety on solid ground, but I have forfeited something profound by doing that. I dared to believe Christ and proposed to all and sundry that the time is ripe to “just do it.” Where I slipped was where had underestimated my own strength and resoluteness.
Wholeness corresponds to what Jaspers refers to as the Encompassing:
For us, being remains open. On all sides it draws us into the unlimited. Over and over again it is always causing some new determinate being to confront us. Such is the course of our progressing knowledge. By reflecting upon that course we ask about being itself, which always seems to recede from us, in the very manifestation of all the appearances we encounter. This being we call the encompassing. But the encompassing is not the horizon of our knowledge at any particular moment. Rather, it is the source from which all new horizons emerge, without itself ever being visible even as a horizon. The encompassing always merely announces itself— in present objects and within the horizons—but it never becomes an object. Never appearing to us itself, it is that wherein everything else appears. It is also that due to which all things not merely are what they immediately seem to be, but remain transparent.
Jaspers, Karl. Philosophy of Existence (Works in Continental Philosophy) (pp. 17-18). University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc… Kindle Edition.
