Quantum Drummer

There is much about the relationship of opposites that is present in Carl Jung’s works. Indeed, it has been discussed that Jung believed that the main task of psychology is to facilitate the achievement of the union of opposites. We have seen how much of the relationship of opposites is present in Jung’s work as part of his development of the concept of the Unus Mundus, as well as his analysis on the alchemical wedding, and in his book Psychology and Alchemy (1953), Jung describes the concept of Coincidentia Oppositorum, when he writes:

“The self is made manifest in the opposites and in the conflict between them: it is a coincidentia oppositorum. Hence the way to the self begins with conflict.” (p. 186).

The psyche, according to Jung, requires to integrate several pairs of opposites, such as the anima and animus (masculine and feminine), body and spirit, conscious and unconscious, persona and shadow, and good and evil, and the processing of the conflicts occurring between all of these opposite pairs, as well as their integration, are the main part of the individual’s process of individuation. Jung believed that it is the “transcendent function” which facilitates the integration of the opposites, through the action of symbols. Being this the case, it appears that we must pay close attention to the transcendent function and its operation in the psique, as a way to understand how to achieve the integration of opposites.

Before we dive deeper on the transcendent function, we should continue to explore Jung’s philosophy behind the coincidentia oppositorum. First of all, according to Drob (2017), Jung refers to Schiller in claiming that “the opposition between intellect and feeling, spirituality and sensual desire can be mediated and reconciled only via symbols” (pp. 182-183) this being the case since we are including conscious and unconscious elements, which therefore results in going beyond thought and reason concepts.

Providing great details to exemplify the symbolic need to reconcile the opposites, Jung describes the following in his book Symbols of Transformation (1956):

“ The hero who clings to the mother is the dragon, and when he is reborn from the mother he becomes the conqueror of the dragon (Here we must pay attention to the hero-dragon relationship which later was expanded so wonderfully by Joseph Campbell). He shares this paradoxical nature with the snake. According to Philo the snake is the most spiritual of all creatures; it is of a fiery nature, and its swiftness is terrible. It has a long life and sloughs off old age with its skin. In actual fact the snake is a cold-blooded creature, unconscious and unrelated. It is both toxic and prophylactic, equally a symbol of the good and bad daemon (the Agathodaemon), of Christ and the devil. Among the Gnostics it was regarded as an emblem of the brain-stem and spinal cord, as is consistent with its predominantly reflex psyche. It is an excellent symbol for the unconscious, perfectly expressing the latter’s sudden and unexpected manifestations, its painful and dangerous intervention in our affairs, and its frightening effects. Taken purely as a psychologem the hero represents the positive, favourable action of the unconscious, while the dragon is its negative and unfavourable action – not birth, but a devouring; not a beneficial and constructive deed, but greedy retention and destruction.” (pp. 374-375).

This paragraph includes so much information to unpack. First of all, the pair of opposites relationship identified between the hero and the dragon is important. Two key elements come to mind, first of all, in the hero journey, and the appearance of the dragon, it can be a common view that the hero and the dragon are independent from each other. The hero first has the courage to leave the Mother and go on the journey, where eventually will find, fight and triumph over the dragon. But is very easy to assume that the dragon is an external element to the hero, most probably some kind of obstacle or challenge that the hero finds on the journey, and which the hero eventually overcomes. The way that Jung is describing here the hero ~ dragon relationship makes both part of the same individual, a pair of opposites which both are elements of the individuals psique. The hero representing the courage and will power of the individual, and the dragon representing an internal limitation that the individual’s psique has constructed, most probably making reference to fear. The whole of the hero’s journey can be described as an internal journey in the psique of the individual, which will confront the hero part with the dragon, or fear part of his/her own psique.

The second key point here is that this description identifies two different possibilities: the internal hero journey and the external hero journey. Again, it is easy to assume that Campbell’s hero journey is strictly an external one, but Jung is describing here the existence of an internal hero journey, one that only the individual knows, and must overcome when facing internal fears.

Reflecting on this, we all seem to have two hero journeys that we are trying to complete at any given time, the external one, which is the journey of our life in the material world, which includes our careers, our relationships, and our actions, and the internal one, which is the journey in our psique, and includes our internal fears, mental models, traumas, complexes, etc. The persona/ego being the heroes in the external journey, while the unconscious and probably the shadow are the heroes in the internal journey.

This analysis brings us to another fascinating reflection made by Jung, and described on his book: Psychological Types (1971) as follows:

“On epistemological grounds, we are at present quite unable to make any valid statement about the objective reality of the complex psychological phenomenon we call the unconscious, just as we are in no position to say anything valid about the essential nature of real things, for this lies beyond our psychological ken. On the grounds of practical experience, however, I must point out that, in relation to the activity of consciousness, the contents of the unconscious lay the same claim to reality on account of their obstinate persistence as do the real things of the external world, even though this claim must appear very improbable to a mind that is “outer-directed.” It must not be forgotten that there have always been many people for whom the contents of the unconscious possessed a greater reality than the things of the outside world.” (p. 168).

Once again, so much to unpack from this reflection. The most important item being the similar value given by Jung to the objective reality of the conscious and the objective reality of the unconscious. Both being able to have the same validity but at the same time, both having the same lack of objective proof. Only depending on the individual focus being “outer-directed” or “unconscious directed.” The inability to attach objective reality to the external world aligns with the modern view of the nature of objective reality provided by Quantum Mechanics, but at the same time, by giving the same validity to the objective reality of the unconscious, perhaps proposing that the objective reality of the unconscious and the objective reality of the conscious are complementary, both potentially valid, and both potentially invalid, depending on the frame of reference. This analysis of the nature of reality in reference to the conscious and unconscious developed by Jung, brings him very close to the philosophy of Complementarity. Even more, in discussing once again the thinking and intuition elements, in Psychological Types, he indicates:

“ The conflict between the two “truths” requires a pragmatic attitude if any sort of justice is to be done to the other standpoint….The solution of the conflict of opposites can come neither from the intellectual compromise of conceptualism nor from a pragmatic assessment of the practical value of logically irreconcilable views, but only from a positive act of creation which assimilates the opposites as necessary elements of co-ordination, in the same way as a co-ordinated muscular movement depends on the innervation of opposing muscle groups. Pragmatism can be no more than a transitional attitude preparing the way for the creative way by removing prejudices. James and Bergson are signposts along the road which German philosophy – not of the academic sort – has already trodden. But it was really Nietzsche who, with a violence peculiarly his own, struck out on the path to the future. His creative act goes beyond the unsatisfying pragmatic solution just as fundamentally as pragmatism itself, in acknowledging the living value of a truth, transcended the barren one-sidedness and unconscious conceptualism of post-Abelardian philosophy – and still there are heights to be climbed.” (321).

 One more analysis by Jung full of insight and wisdom. First of all, bringing pragmatism as a required tool in the solution to the conflict of opposites, while introducing a dichotomy by also saying that the solution cannot come from a pragmatic assessment or from an “intellectual compromise of conceptualism… but only from a positive act of creation which assimilates the opposites as necessary elements of co-ordination.” This “act of creation which assimilates the opposites as necessary elements of co-ordination” is very much a description of the concept of Complementarity, a tool or language that was not available to Jung at the time of his analysis. He makes reference to William James, but only in regards to the philosophy of Pragmatism, of which James was one of the main contributors, and connects the necessary “act of creation” required for the solution to the conflict of opposites to Nietzsche’s philosophy. It surely seems that the missing link here is the concept of Complementarity, which can be also related to the “heights to be climbed” described by Jung.

One sure thing that is present through all of Jung’s reflections, is the presence of the pairs of opposites in conflict both in the conscious and unconscious realms, as well as the conflicts among these opposites and the possible approaches to a solution, which later become the central element of the philosophy of Complementarity. While the connection to James is strictly related to the philosophy of Pragmatism, this connection might point out to the beginning of an indirect dialogue between Jung and James that is worth researching. But also, introduces the reference to Pragmatism, which is an approach that I believe can deliver a greater value in the practical application of Complementarity, and will be a discussion I will bring up later in these writings.