As mentioned before, much of Jung’s work is focused in analyzing the relationship of opposites. The way that the tension of opposites affect the human psyche was one of Jung’s main obsessions, both in his professional life as well as in his own personal struggles with depression and psychosis. Jung used several alchemical concepts to analyze the opposites and study their parallel with the human psyche. Some of the concepts found in Jung’s works are: unio mystica – mystic or sacred marriage, complexio oppositorum – opposites embodied in a single image, unus mundus – one world, coincidentia oppositorum – coincidence of opposites, the Philosopher’s Stone, and the coniunctio.
The Coniunctio
The concept of coniunctio is mainly found in Jung’s book: Mysterium Coniunctionis, as mentioned before written between 1955 and 1956. The description of the coniunctio as provided by Sharp (1991) as follows: “… literally ‘conjunction,’ used in alchemy to refer to chemical combinations, psychologically, it points to the union of opposites and the birth of new possibilities.” (p. 42).
Sharp also provides the reference to Jung’s description:
“The coniunctio is an a priori image that occupies a prominent place in the history of man’s mental development. If we trace this idea back, we find it has two sources in alchemy, one Christian, the other pagan. The Christian source is unmistakably the doctrine of Christ and the Church, sponsus and sponsa, where Christ takes the role of Sol and the Church that of Luna. The pagan source is on the one hand the hieros-gamos, on the other the marital union of the mystic with God.” Jung (1966).
The concept of hieros-gamos mentioned in this paragraph is also widely found in Jung’s works and it is a Greek term that means “sacred marriage.”
On the introduction to Mysterium Coniunctionis, Jung starts by indicating that “The factors which come together in the coniunctio are conceived as opposites, either confronting one another in enmity or attracting one another in love.” (Jung, 1963), following by a list of the main pairs of opposites used in the alchemical work:
Humidum (moist)/Siccum (dry) Frigidum (cold)/calidum (warm)
Superiora (upper, higher)/inferiora (lower) Spiritus-anima(spirit-soul)/corpus (body)
Coelum (heaven)/terra (earth) Ignis (fire)/aqua (water)
Bright/dark Agens (active)/patiens (passive)
Volatile (volatile, gaseous)/fixum (solid) Pretiosum (precious, costly)/vile (cheap, common)
Bonum (good)/malum (evil) Manifestum (open)/occultum (occult)
Oriens (east)/occidens (west) Vivum (living)/mortuum (dead)
Masculus (masculine)/foemina(feminine) Sol/Luna
Jung describes how these pairs of opposites form a “dualism” and “…often the polarity is arranged as a quaternio (quaternity), with the two opposites crossing one another, as for instance the four elements of the four qualities (moist, dry, cold warm), or the four directions and seasons, thus producing the cross as an emblem of the four elements and symbol of the sublunary physical world.” (Jung, 1963, p. 3).
The quaternity described by Jung is also found later on his concept of mental functions, in which the quaternity is formed by the two pairs of opposites: thinking ~ feeling and sensation ~ intuition, as well as the attitude type duality of: introversion ~ extraversion. These elements are present on every individual’s personalities in different levels, and some of their parts being in the conscious while other parts are present in the unconscious. If we observe the distribution of all these elements, we can define several complementary relationships between the individual elements, and then a second level of complementarity between the pairs, where the higher level of complementarity is formed by the conscious ~ unconscious.
This demonstrates us that complementarity is not just a simple relationship between a pair of opposites, but can expand into multi-level complementarities. As is the case with most every phenomena in nature, complementarity as seen by just being formed by one pair of opposites provides a very reductionistic view, and the reality of the relationships found is much more complex.
Opposite Attitudes
When analyzing the problems that arise from the polarization of the opposites, Jung was able to study this concept and to personally live its reality during the rise of Nazism in Germany. First of all, Jung was able to find that regarding the two attitudes of introversion and extroversion, one of them normally dominates the individual conscious experience and behavior while the other takes a compensatory (or complementary) position in the individual’s unconscious. The balance between these attitudes is changing constantly, even if one of the attitudes is dominant during normal conditions. There might be some influence or trigger (Jung does not mention if this can be internal or external, but most probably could be either) that may generate an unexpected, distressing, or impulsive thought or behavior (Drob, 2017, p. 208).
Drob (2017) has more details on this regard when he mentions:
“…each individual has both a conscious and unconscious attitude – the latter often appearing in fantasy and dreams. At times the two attitudes intermingle and it becomes difficult to ascertain which is conscious and which is unconscious. Conscious attitudes and functions dominate the individual’s experience and behavior unless and until they become over-emphasized, causing a compensatory drive to be set in motion by one’s opposing unconscious attitudes and functions.” (p. 208)
Before we get to discuss more details about Jung and his views on Nazism, we will prepare a framework to try and structure the conditions expressed here. First of all, we have discussed the introvert ~ extrovert pair of opposites, which has also mentioned as internal ~ external attitude related pair of opposites. This seems to be the beginning of an attempt to structure the attitude related sources using a reductionistic approach. While Jung always showed an open mind and was conscious of the risks of polarization, he obviously was embedded in the mechanistic paradigm, and would have to maintain some level of polarization tendencies, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is a risk that remains to this day in all of us, and we have to make an effort to observe when we are polarizing our thoughts. The full open-minded approach to maintain a balance between two opposites does not come easy to us.
A potential evolution of these (complementary) dichotomies can be expressed as follows:
Attitude towards a certain condition:
Internal ~ External (Reaction)
Introverted ~ Extroverted (Tendency)
Conscious ~ Unconscious (Reaction)
And to align these “Jungian” pairs of opposites with McGilchrist’s work we can continue the analysis with the following complementary pairs of opposites:
Jung ~ McGilchrist
Apollo ~ Dionysius (Archetype)
Reason ~ Transcendence
Self Mastery ~ Self Abandon
Left Hemisphere ~ Right Hemisphere
This framework present to us at least two important elements to consider: First of all, we need to remember that in all cases, the pair of opposites represent a continuum, and not only two isolated extremes. Using the paradigm of complementarity, we need to keep an: “either ~ or and both ~ and” attitude towards the analysis, and make sure we do not fall in the trap of just using “either ~ or” to perform the analysis. By clarifying this complementary approach to our analysis, we can propose the following ideas:
1.- The attitude towards the condition will always be in-flow between the different pairs of opposites. This flow is most probably ever-changing and dynamic
2.- No reaction is based completely on internal or external conditions, it will have portions of both external and internal influence, even if it might gravitate towards one of the opposites
3.- There is no pure “introverted” or pure “extroverted” tendencies, this is also a combination of both, with a tendency towards one of the extreme but always with a component of the other extreme
4.- Similarly, there is no pure “conscious” or pure “unconscious” reaction. A reaction, even if tending to be a conscious one, will have some component of unconscious bias, and vice-versa, an unconscious reaction will have a conscious element even if so small (We can argue that this is the case when the person is in an awake state, and the condition does not trigger the “fight/flight/freeze” limbic system – It might be easier to expect an unconscious element when the person is conscious than having a conscious element when the person is unconscious)
5.- The Archetype of Apollo and Dionysius represents the fight between the forces of reason (Apollo) and transcendence (Dionysius), developing another pair of opposites: reason ~ transcendence, or: self-mastery ~ self-abandon. This dichotomy was used by Nietzsche in his book: The Birth of Tragedy to show that a dynamic life would be “in-flow” between both self-mastery and self-abandon conditions (Schneider, 2013, p. 119)
6.- Regarding the dynamics among the two brain hemispheres, the apparent conclusion here is that whichever hemisphere is dominant in a specific individual, would maintain the elements of consciousness and reason, and the non-dominant hemisphere would maintain the elements of unconsciousness and transcendence
The overall conclusion of this analysis is that we are always behaving in a dynamic flow between the pairs of opposites, and there is influence or bias present at any given time which will affect our position between the opposites, consciously or unconsciously. To provide examples of this situation, Drob (2017) mentions how Jung criticized Nietzsche about his over-identification with the Dyonisian principle of transcendence, which generated a failure by Nietzsche of realizing a balance between the opposites. However, and as an example of how we are always fighting against different biases, Drob describes Jung’s bias toward the instinctual and mythological vs. the rational, which projected Jung in the dangerous direction of becoming an early sympathizer of Germany’s National Socialism. Drob (2017) describes a portion of one of Jung’s lectures in London in 1935 as follows:
“Would you have believed that a whole nation of highly intelligent and cultivated people could be seized by the fascinating power of an archetype? I saw it coming, and I can understand it because I know the power of the collective unconscious. But on the surface it looks simply incredible. Even my personal friends are under that fascination, and when I am in Germany, I believe it myself, I understand it all, I know it has to be as it is. One cannot resist it. It gets you below the belt and not in your mind, your brain just counts for nothing, your sympathetic system is gripped. It is a power that fascinates people from within, it is the collective unconscious which is activated… We cannot be children about it, having intellectual and reasonable ideas and saying: this should not be…An incomprehensible fate has seized them (the German people), and you cannot say it is right, or it is wrong. It has nothing to do with rational judgement, it is just history.” (p. 209)
With this description of the response towards the National Socialist movement in Germany, we can observe the flow of Jung’s psyche towards the unconscious and transcendental extremes, and we can observe the implicit presence of the biases that Jung held. If we consider that Jung was Aryan, wealthy and by that time already famous in Europe, we can discern his biases were in line with the intent of the National Socialist message. It most probably would have been different if Jung had been Jewish, middle class, and not a famous doctor. Later on, Jung distanced himself from Nazism, which was the right thing to do, but the early influence he received and accepted is a powerful example of the risks that can be present when forces in search of power utilize archetypal, populist, nationalist and almost hypnotic tools to influence people, A lesson that we should keep even in our current times.
Quantum Drummer 
Leave a comment