Quantum Drummer

In order to understand in more detail the way our minds become polarized, and be able to define potential solutions to the problem of polarized minds, I will provide an analysis of the basis in which C.G. Jung described the way the human psyche is formed using a Complementarity-based approach.

It is important to address once again how Jung was paying attention to the opposites since his early writings. His book: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1953) includes, as its first essay: On the Psychology of the Unconscious, written in 1917, In which Paragraph 78 of the book approaches the opposites as follows:

“It has become abundantly clear to me that life can flow forward only along the path of the gradient. But there is no energy unless there is a tension of opposites; hence it is necessary to discover the opposite to the attitude of the conscious mind. It is interesting to see how this compensation by opposites also plays its part in the historical theories of neurosis: Freud’s theory espoused Eros, Adler’s the will to power. Logically, the opposite of love is hate, and Eros, Phobos (fear); but psychologically it is the will to power. Where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will to power is paramount, love is lacking. The one is but the shadow of the other: The man who adopts the standpoint of Eros finds his compensatory opposite in the will to power, and that of the man who puts the accent on power is Eros.

Seen from the one-sided point of view of the conscious attitude, the shadow is an inferior component of the personality and is consequently repressed through intensive resistance. But the repressed content must be made conscious so as to produce a tension of opposites, without which no forward movement is possible. The conscious mind is on top, the shadow underneath, and just as high always longs for low and hot for cold, so all consciousness, perhaps without being aware of it, seeks its unconscious opposite, lacking which it is doomed to stagnation, congestion, and ossification. Life is born only of the spark of opposites.” (Paragraph 78).

The importance of the relationship between pairs of opposites is here confirmed, as a necessary condition for movement, activity, and for life itself. The consistent theme with previous observations is the activity between conscious and unconscious, which form a complementary pair of opposites, and the existence of the shadow as an element of the unconscious part, which has a part that is unknown to the conscious and needs to be brought to the front of consciousness in order for the individual to go through the action of processing the opposites and grow and mature towards individuation. This description provides us with the basis to look at the overall human psyche according to Jung, and to evaluate it in complementary terms.

A Complementary View of Jung’s Psyche

One of Jung’s main developments to psychology is his work on a model of the psyche. As Jung’s basis to the structure of Analytical Psychology, he gives the unconscious a very important place in the framework of the psyche. On his book: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1959, 1), he describes his basic thoughts about the unconscious and the concept of “analytical treatment” as follows:

“The relation between the conscious and the unconscious on the one hand, and the individuation process on the other, are problems that arise almost regularly during the later stages of analytical treatment. By ‘analytical’ I mean a procedure that takes account of the existence of the unconscious.” (Paragraph 489).

We observe here the importance that Jung gives to his concept of Individuation, which he defines in the next paragraph of the book:

“I use the term ‘Individuation’ to denote the process by which a person becomes a psychological ‘in-dividual,’ that is, a separate, indivisible unity or ‘whole.’ It is generally assumed that consciousness is the whole of the psychological individual. But knowledge of the phenomena that can only be explained on the hypothesis of unconscious psychic processes makes it doubtful whether the ego and its contents are in fact identical with the ‘whole.’ If unconscious processes exist at all, they must surely belong to the totality of the individual, even though they are not components of the conscious ego. If they were part of the ego, they would necessarily be conscious, because everything that is directly related to the ego is conscious. Consciousness can even be equated with the relation between the ego and the psychic contents.” (Paragraph 490).

Being Jung’s model of the psyche of such importance for all the framework of Analytical Psychology, and given my thesis that the human psyche is a complementary structure, I will analyze next his model with the lens of Complementarity philosophy, while at the same time, attempting to simplify and clarify Jung’s model:

The model of the human psyche developed by Jung appears to be a set of complementary elements formed by several layers having structured simple complementary pairs, and higher levels of “complementary pairs of pairs,” which previously I described as “complex complementary pairs.”

Prior to the definition of the layers, I would suggest the clarification of what Jung calls “consciousness” which he seems to equate just to the portion considered “conscious” of the psyche. I propose that “Consciousness” is the high-level entity, which includes both the “conscious” and the “unconscious” elements of the psyche.

Then, the first, or ‘top’ layer is the overall entity of Consciousness, which is built by the pair of opposites: conscious ~ unconscious, forming a binary relationship.

The second layer consists of two groups of parts, one group forming the conscious element, and another group forming the unconscious element.

The Conscious Element

The conscious element is formed by a complementary relationship of three parts: The Persona, the ego and part of the Self, or the triad: Persona ~ Ego ~ Self. Parts that are defined as follows:

Persona – The “I,” usually ideal aspects of ourselves, that we present to the outside world. As pointed by Jung on his book: Psychological Types (1971):

“The Persona is …a functional complex that comes into existence for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience, but is by no means identical with the individuality. The persona is exclusively concerned with the relation to objects” (Paragraph 801).

And on the book: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1959, 1), Jung says:

“Every calling or profession, for example, has its own characteristic persona…. One could say, with a little exaggeration, that the persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is.” (Paragraph 221).

Hence, Persona is the face that we present to the world, but this face is not the totality of who we are as individuals.

 Ego – The central complex in the conscious field. The ego comes into existence as a complex quantity which is constituted partly by the inherited disposition (character constituents) and partly by unconsciously acquired impressions and their attendant phenomena.

On Jung’s book: Civilization in Transition (1964), he mentions:

“Most people confuse ‘self-knowledge’ with knowledge of their conscious ego-personalities. Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in the social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them.” (Paragraph 491).

Jung considered the Ego as the center of the conscious. The ego is important for the person to compete in the world, and is the source of motivation and success in life, however, when the person is excessively focused on the ego, a negative phenomena called “inflation” occurs.

Self – For purposes of this model, the Self is an element of the psyche that is formed by a part of the conscious and a part of the unconscious, being the center of the psyche. However, in Jung’s definitions, the Self is considered the archetype of the Wholeness, and is closer to what we have defined as “Consciousness” above. Being the most complex of all of the elements of the psyche, the Self is defined by Jung, on his book: Psychological Types (1971), as:

“… an empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account of it unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part, only potentially empirical band is to that extent a postulate. In other words, it encompasses both the experienceable and the inexperienciable (or not yet experienced).” (Paragraph 789).

And also:

“Just as conscious as well as unconscious phenomena are to be met with in practice, the self as psychic totality also has a conscious as well as an unconscious aspect. Empirically, the self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the ‘supraordinate personality’ (v. EGO), such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuli, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or in the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united.” (Paragraph 790).

An important characteristic of the Self is the condition that some of its experiences have “a numinous element,” which connects with spiritual and religious revelations. Jung believed that there is a correlation between the Self as a psychological reality and the concept of a “supreme deity.”  In Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1953), Jung says:

“(The Self) … serves to express an unknowable essence which we cannot grasp as such, since by definition it transcends our powers of comprehension. It might equally well be called the “God within us.” The beginnings of our whole psychic life seems to be inextricably rooted in this point, and all our highest and ultimate purposes seem to be striving towards it. This paradox is unavoidable, as always, when we try to define something that lies beyond the bourn of our understanding.” (Paragraph 399).

In summary, the Conscious part of the psyche is the triad: Persona ~ Ego ~ Self. The Persona is the main element in contact with the material world, together with the Ego, while the Self is at the center of the Conscious, and having a part of itself in the Conscious, it is also present on the Unconscious, so for practical purposes we can say that half of the Self is on the Conscious side, and half of the Self is on the Unconscious side. Using Jung’s concepts, we can assume that the Self is the element that manages the relationship between Conscious and Unconscious through the action of the Transcendent Function.

Transcendent Function –  A psychic function that arises from the tension between consciousness and the unconscious and supports their union … In a conflict situation, or a state of depression for which there is no apparent reason, the development of the transcendent function depends on becoming aware of unconscious material. This is most readily available in dreams, but because they are so difficult to understand, Jung considers the method of active imagination – giving “form” to dreams, fantasies, etc. – to be more useful, (Sharp, 1991).

The Unconscious Element

The Unconscious element is much more complicated than the Conscious. In following Jung’s models, we find at least two possible options of groups of parts that can be included in the Unconscious, both group options are different complementary relationships.  The first option is simpler, and considers the complementary relationshipof the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and a portion of the Self (the unconscious portion of the Self), being the triad: Shadow ~ Anima/Animus ~ Self. However, there are at least two other parts that appear to be part of the Unconscious: Personal Unconscious and Collective Unconscious. The graphical depictions of Jung’s models, show the simpler triad of Shadow ~ Anima/Animus ~ Self, embedded into larger elements for the Personal and Collective Unconscious, however, my suggestion is to consider the Unconscious as an element that consists of a complementary relationship of at least five parts: Shadow ~ Anima/Animus ~ Self ~ Personal Unconscious ~ Collective Unconscious. These five, or in reality six (considering Anima and Animus as separate items) parts, combine together and all are necessary to form the Unconscious. The definitions for these parts are the following:

Shadow – Hidden or unconscious aspects of oneself, both good and bad, which the ego has either repressed or never recognized (Sharp, 1991), and as per Jung’s definition, on his book: Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (1959, 2):

“The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance. Indeed, self-knowledge as a psychotherapeutic measure frequently requires much painstaking work extending over a long period.” (Paragraph 14).

Anima – The inner feminine side of a man. The anima is both a personal complex and an archetypal image of woman in the male psyche. It is an unconscious factor incarnated anew in every male child, and is responsible for the mechanism of projection. Initially identified with the personal mother, the anima is later experienced not only in other women but as a pervasive influence in a man’s life. (Sharp, 1991).

The Anima (and the Animus) are one of the most complicated parts of the human psyche. We can determine that the Anima and Animus, such as the dichotomy male ~ female, form the complementary pair of opposites: Anima ~ Animus.

 The simplest description provided by Jung on The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1959, 1) is as follows:

“… she is not characteristic of the unconscious in its entirety. She is only one of its aspects. This is shown by the very fact of her femininity. What is not-I, not masculine, is most probably feminine, and because the not-I is felt as not belonging to me and therefore as outside me, the anima image is usually projected upon women.” (Paragraph 58).

The Anima, being such a complicated element, needs its own section to analyze all of its details. For now we can summarize it as being everything that is not masculine in a man (or whatever is feminine in a man), and even if it is part of the individual’s unconscious, given that it is perceived as not being part of the male individual, being the feminine part of the male individual, it is projected into other women.

Animus – To provide the required balance to the dichotomy male ~ female, the Animus is the inner masculine side of a woman. Similarly to the Anima in men, the Animus is both a personal complex as well as an archetypal image in women. The Anima in men functions as their soul, but the Animus in women functions as an unconscious part of the mind. It has a negative manifestation in fixed or stubborn ideas, or a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. “In a woman who is identified with the Animus (called animus possession), Eros generally takes second place to Logos. (Sharp, 1991). Here, we see the appearance of one more complementary pair: Eros ~ Logos, which we will analyze later.

Self – As described in the Conscious section, the Self is an element of the psyche that is formed by a part of the conscious and a part of the unconscious. The part of the Self that is unconscious is hidden from the Ego and from the overall Conscious, and interacts with the Unconscious elements of the Shadow and the Anima/Animus.

Personal Unconscious – The personal layer of the Unconscious, distinct from the Collective Unconscious (Sharp, 1991). The Personal Unconscious keeps everything that is in the psyche of the individual and that is not accessible to the conscious. Items like lost memories, repressed memories, painful ideas that get ignored and hidden (forgotten or purposely ignored), subliminal information, and anything that is in the psyche that is not accessible to the conscious mind.

Collective Unconscious – The layer of the human psyche that contains elements that are available to all other humans, elements that are part of the culture, that cannot be explained on the basis of personal experience, such as “the whole spiritual heritage of mankind’s evolution.” (Sharp, 1991).

On Jung’s book: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche (1970), he mentions:

“The collective unconscious – so far as we can say anything about it at all – appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious … We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.” (Paragraph 325).

In general terms, the personal unconscious is individual, while the collective unconscious is universal. The contents of both are unreachable to the conscious mind, they can influence the individual’s behavior in an unconscious way, through dreams, psychosis, or more complex psychological issues.

In addition to all of these parts that form the psyche, there are two components that do not form complementary relationships in the psyche, but they are important because they can influence behavior is the personality of the individual and affect the psyche. These are the Complexes and the Archetypes.

Complex – An emotionally charged group of ideas or images (Sharp, 1991).

As described by Jung on his book: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche (1970):

“Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.” (Paragraph 253).

The Complexes exist mainly in the Personal Unconscious, but they influence the individual behavior in a way that cannot be controlled consciously. They can develop psychosis in the individual, and they cannot be eliminated but only identified and compensated through therapy.

Archetypes – Primordial, structural elements of the human psyche (Sharp, 1991).

Regarding the Archetypes, on his book: Civilization in Transition (1964), Jung indicates:

“… the archetypes are as it were the hidden foundations of the conscious mind, or, to use another comparison, the roots which the psyche has sunk not only in the earth in the narrower sense but in the world in general. Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain-structure – indeed, they are its psychic aspect. They represent, on the one hand, a very strong instinctive conservatism, while on the other hand they are the most effective means conceivable of instinctive adaptation …. The psychic influence on the earth and its laws is seen most clearly in these primordial images.” (Paragraph 53).

The Archetypes are present in the Collective Unconscious, but similarly to the Complexes, they have unconscious influence over the individual’s behavior. In normal life, archetypal patterns can be identified in individuals, such as the behavior patterns of the hero, the child, the wise old man (or woman), the trickster, etc.

Summary of the Complementary Psyche

We have provided a summarized description of the elements of the human psyche, showing its different layers, consisting of different levels of complementary relationships. The following is the summarized complementary structure of the psyche:

Jung’s Model of the Psyche (A Complementary View)

Layer 1 – Consciousness

Conscious ~ Unconscious

Layer 2 – Conscious: Persona ~ Ego ~ Self

Unconscious: Shadow ~ Anima/Animus ~ Self

Layer 3 – Personal Unconscious ~ Universal Unconscious

A more summarized model of the psyche shows the three layers as:

Layer 1 – Conscious (or Consciousness)

Layer 2 – Personal Unconscious

Layer 3 – Universal Unconscious

The complementary nature of the psyche is shown when evaluating the different elements and observing how they, being opposites, form complementary relationships, such as the case of the Consciousness, which is formed by the relationship of Conscious and Unconscious. These being opposites, both being required to form the Consciousness and both being invisible to each other, same as the nature of light, being formed by waves and particles, each one unaware of the other.

I have performed this summarized analysis of the psyche model developed by Jung, to suggest its complementary nature and to provide an operational explanation. One thing is true, the psyche and the nature of the behavior of its different components is quite complex, and it requires more than just a binary (Boolean) relationship to understand.