It's Friday. In the painting quarter of a psychiatric clinic, the atmosphere is quiet and calm. Blank sheets of paper intertwine with paints and color pencils reminding us that those hands creating images belong to those who once had their status of individuals taken away from them.
It's Friday. In the painting quarter of a psychiatric clinic, the atmosphere is quiet and calm. Blank sheets of paper intertwine with paints and color pencils reminding us that those hands creating images belong to those who once had their status of individuals taken away from them.Suddenly, someone that I'll name João bursts onto the scene. Nervous and anguished, he moves around frantically unable to focus on anything. Wide-eyed, he reveals a strong expression of fright.
He starts talking hurriedly, almost without control of what he says. His high pitch voice calls the attention of the others, who seem to perceive the delicate situation in progress.
His discourse refers to his being in the midst of a great conflict because he does not know how to choose between Reason and Emotion. He says he feels confused and lost for having to choose one of them; and that, for him, the choice of one implies the elimination of the other. He tries to convince himself of the advantages and importance of following the way of Reason, privileging, at the same time, everything that Emotion can provide. The same reasoning is used the other way round.
A feeling of guilt is added to the anguish of having to choose. Guilt for having to define himself, for having to choose, for having to stand for something he is not sure of.
I ask him if he would like to write down everything he is saying and that is tormenting him. To my surprise, he agrees to do so and starts writing immediately. I feel that, somehow, my mediation got through to João as a form of reference to which he could relate in an attempt to break free from the confusion he was in.
João writes in an extremely concentrated way and, for the first time, he manages to calm down. He takes a blank sheet of paper and writes down the word "God" in the center. Right below it, dividing the word, he writes the words "Reason" and "Emotion".
The word "Reason" is followed by several other words: "contents, laws, religion, old things, paternalism, education and greetings". The word "Emotion" is followed by: "all kinds of feelings, psychological things, homosexuality, jealousy and affection".
Thus, the act of writing fulfills its function of decreasing the effectiveness of psychic contents. Through writing, João aims at objectifying that which is torturing him, realizing what the alchemists called sublimatio, make light, sublime. A relationship between João and the images is initiated.
As soon as he is done with his work, he stands up and asks me to put it away. I agree, but as I am about to put his work inside his folder, he interrupts me to say that there is something even more important. He says that love is the only force that is able to unite Reason and Emotion. He enunciates that love is "a type of bridge which helps people connect these two places that are so very distant one from the other. He tells me that " those who do not have love will never manage to be happy, neither with Reason nor with Emotion". João tells me he is going down to the other sector and says good-bye, leaving me not just with his work to put away but also with a series of questions which I did not know where to "keep".
If you can realize how important and moving this experience was for João, there's no way of denying its equal importance to me. It had been such a strong experience that I felt I had to have a better understanding of the images he had brought about.
Jung, in his book "Psychological Types", states that his Psychology is based on the Soul, being an "esse in anima", that is, "a state of being in the Soul".
James Hillman, founder of Archetypal Psychology, teaches us that the Soul is the metaphorical root of psychology. To look for it is to search for the images it is made of, for this is the way through which the psyche introduces itself. Thus, every act of consciousness depends on, and is submitted to, the command of the images. Therefore, any direct and immediate knowledge can only be acquired through the acknowledgment of the psychic images.
The Soul communicates through a metaphorical and mythical language. The movement of returning to the soul, preeminently a psychological movement, means returning to the images, now regarded as presentations and not as representations. The objective of Archetypal Psychology is not the symbol but the image, since the first tends to erase and exclude the singularities conveyed by the latter. Instead of the symbolistic approach, we create an imaginal approach, since the symbols only appear (can only appear) in images and as images. Hillman says that symbols are abstractions of the psyche and that it is exactly this condition that enables us to research their meanings in indexes and dictionaries.
Images are not signs, representations, symbols or allegories. It is through the experience of the image and through the experience triggered by it that one can realize what Hillman calls "the individuation of images".
For a psychology that considers the images as its field of interest, avoiding the reduction of these images to mere concepts is an ethical must.
Archetypal Psychology opposes any reductionistic attempt to translate images into concepts as well as any attempt to conceptualize the imagination and the world of images. Hillman alerts for the danger of privileging the conceptual over the imaginal, of trying to interpret the images, of translating images based on a predetermined code of meanings of which the analyst is the translator par excellence. This movement, according to Hillman, produces, as a consequence, the loss and the setting aside of the image, therefore preventing the Soul-making.
The fundamental rule of Archetypal Psychology is to stick to the image, for it always opens an unlimited field of imaginative possibilities to us. Due to its radical polysemy, the image is, and will always be, much more complex than any concept.
As an alternative, Hillman offers the practice of interpretation, the analogy. Analogy will be defined as resemblance in the function but not in the origin. Analogy keeps us in a mode of functional operation of the image, in patterns of similarities without locating a common point for these similarities. The operational term of analogy is the "as if" instead of the "this is" of the interpretative perspective. It has to do with preventing the images from being reduced into concepts, the analogies into interpretations, the similar functions into a common point, so that the innumerable metaphorical possibilities of the Soul can be respected.
Facing these ideas, we ask ourselves: is there anything in common between James Hillman and the poems of a poet from the lowlands of Mato Grosso, Brazil?
It is in a poem of Manoel de Barros, taken from his book, "Livro das Ignoraçãs", that we find the best way to illustrate the fundamental rule of Archetypal Psychology:
"O rio que fazia uma volta atrás de nossa casa era a
imagem de um vidro mole que fazia uma volta atrás de casa.
Passou um homem depois e disse: essa volta que o
Rio faz por trás de sua casa se chama enseada.
Não era mais a imagem de uma cobra de vidro que
Fazia uma volta atrás de casa.
Era uma enseada.
Acho que o nome empobreceu a imagem."
(" the river that drew a curve behind our house was the image of a soft glass that drew a curve behind the house. A man passed by and he said : this curve that the river draws behind your house is called an inlet. It was no longer the image of a glass snake that drew a curve behind the house. It was an inlet. I think the name impoverished the image.")
Our proposition is the same as the poet's: to avoid having the image of a glass snake that draws a curve behind the house reduced to an inlet. The poem of Manoel de Barros confirms what we have always suspected: that the poets know what we, the analysts, strive to theorize.
"All psychic process is an image and a state of imagining", as Jung says, and here the image does not refer to a visual perception or to a reflex of an object. An image is not what we see but how we see, that is, the image is a consequence of an imaginative look.
The word image, according to this perspective, is connected to a poetic usage, to an image of fantasy.
The images organize themselves into fantasies, according to this or that archetypal pattern. Thus, we always find ourselves in an archetypal configuration, in this or that fantasy. We will always be involved in some sort of archetypal fantasy, a mythical perspective.
Therefore, the work consists of trying to approach the images of fantasy and the individual behavior to a figure, to an archetypal process, a myth, and to consider all behavior and fantasy as metaphorical expressions of the Soul. Archetypal Psychology considers it impossible to separate what is individual from what is collective. It will always look for the archetypal perspective in what is considered "purely" personal.
Our purpose here is to know which myth João is experiencing, which archetypal structure constellates in his Soul, who the gods participating in this event are.
João finds himself in an archetypal conflict in which two powerful and distinct forces fight to exert control over his conscience. In this context, he can neither identify himself with nor reject either of them, being left at the mercy of his own intensities.
However, what are these forces, such powerful motifs that emerge and affect João?
Through the amplification technique, we will try to apprehend something about these images. The objective is not to reduce them to their simplest elements or to a one fixed meaning. On the contrary, we will try to circumambulate them through different aspects until various and different meanings arise. Nothing in the psychic world has only one meaning. The amplification becomes a method of Soul-making since it unveils culture in the interior of the psyche. If an individual is included in cultural, symbolic and historical processes, they will eventually arise in the images of the psyche.
In his book Timaeus, in which he explains his cosmology or system of the universe, Plato states the existence of two fundamental principles in action: the first is Nous, the Logos, intellectual principle, order, intelligibility, that is, everything that refers to Reason.
The second principle is Ananke, Necessity. The operations arising out of this principle are described with words such as: errant, dispersive, lost, irrational, irregular and aleatoric. Necessity acts by means of deviations. It can be recognized in the irrational, in the irresponsible, in the indirect. It is mainly associated to that area of experience which is unable to be persuaded or subjected to the command of Reason. Necessity resides in the Soul as an inner cause, constantly producing uncomfortable results.
Plato proposes the connection between Nous and Ananke as follows: " Our inner discourse has made evident the works forged by the art of Reason, Nous; now, we also need to bring into light the things generated by Necessity, Ananke, since the creation of this universe is the result of the combination of Necessity and Reason. Reason has dominated Necessity, persuading it to orient the biggest part of created things towards the best; thus, and according to this principle, the universe has been designed by the victory of the rational persuasion over Necessity. Therefore, if we really want to tell how things begin according to this principle, we also need to mention the intervention of the errant cause ".
Plato states that the two real Arché, primordial substance, are Nous and Ananke. They are both creative principles that take part in the formation of the universe. They are not derived from anything else. Ananke needs always be present, never being gradually surpassed by the enlargement of the domain of Reason. Like the demiurge, who never reduces all the chaos into order, Reason can never persuade of all Necessity. " On the whole, and in each part, Nous and Ananke cooperate; the world is a result of this combination".
In his text "Terminable and Interminable Analysis", Freud refers to the Greek philosopher Empedocles to legitimate his dual theory, in which the death instinct claims equal rights as the life instinct in its manifestations of the libido.
Empedocles stated that there are two principles that govern the events of life in the universe as well as in the life of the mind. He also says that these two principles are in constant battle one with the other. He named them friendship and discord, respectively, "Philia and Eris". One of these principles strives to agglomerate the primeval particles of the four elements into one single unity, unlike the other, that struggles to undo all of these fusions and separate the primeval particles of the elements one from the others. Thus, the process of the universe would consist of a continuous and ceaseless alteration of periods, during which either one or the other of the two fundamental forces predominates in such a way that both forces realize their intent and dominate the universe.
I believe that João, in his myth of the creation of the universe (his psychic universe), feels himself divided between these powerful and distinct principles: Nous and Ananke, Philia and Eris. João faces enormous indefiniteness since, for him, the way out from this conflict lies in the possibility of living (or of identifying himself) with only one of these principles, but never with both at the same time. It seems that, in his psychic scenery, these two forces can neither live together nor cohabit; the experience of one of them means, repeatedly, the exclusion of the other since, in order to bear the two principles, João would have to possess a great quantity of psychic energy, which he doubts having. On the other hand, João does not find the means for stopping one of these principles (Reason-Nous, Emotion-Ananke) from wanting to join his symbolic universe, whichever this might be.
João does not seem to possess the proper instruments to deal with his anguish.
In the thirteenth Congress of Analytical Psychology, Adolf-Guggenbühl-Craig,in a lecture called "Open questions in Analytical Psychology", says that there are different types of questions in Jungian Psychology. There are questions which have been answered and there are those which haven't so far, but which can be answered in a future time (or which, who knows, might never get a satisfactory answer).
I believe that the images João presents to us, as well as the way he deals with them, raise some questions to which, from a Jungian theoretical point of view, there have been no conclusive answers. If we think of João as an individual marked by a psychotic structure, we can wonder: how can we articulate the Jungian concept of Shadow with a psychotic experience? Where is the notion of Shadow located in Psychosis? Would a Shadow act the same way in a neurotic individual as it would in a psychotic one? Would psychosis derive from a malfunctioning of the defense mechanisms of the ego? If so, which would be the defense mechanisms working in psychosis? How does the ego relate to the images in psychotic episodes?
Guggenbühl-Craig says that some questions might never be answered due to the fact that the object of psychology, the Soul, cannot be captured, apprehended or reduced by the Logos; it will always remain a mystery. However, it is up to us to develop theories that would make it possible for us to face this mystery.
Jung states that one of the functions of the Shadow is to work as an intermediate space between the ego and the collective unconscious, that is, it filters the energy of the archetypes of the collective unconscious for the ego. What we notice, in the case of psychosis, is the open presence of this specific structure (the shadow), which causes the ego to become totally exposed to the energy of the archetypal contents. Thus, we can believe that the individual makes use of his psychosis as a defense mechanism.
Being careful not to be trapped by nominative classifications, I propose considering João as someone who, at this moment, is deprived of his capacity to use his defense mechanisms, which leads to an immense discomfort for his ego. His personal story reveals that João has been brought up and educated in an extremely rigid and religious environment, in which the father figure is the highest representation of this system. João has always lived under the influence of this model built by the family, and he has never allowed himself to experience any other model. I believe that when he writes down the word Reason, followed down below by words referring to law, paternalism, education and old things, it is to this model that he is referring to. However, it is not long before Ananke (Emotion) arises to demand from João what it thinks it deserves. João, then, has to face a force which, according to Plato, is associated to that area of experience unable to be commanded by Reason. Concerning João, Ananke refers to Emotion and to all kinds of feelings, psychological things, homosexuality and affection.
We could put it that way: there are two structures, two archetypal principles, that permeate (and demand their permanence) in one's conscience. Because they are not filtered by the Shadow, they threaten the stability of the ego and, at the same time, they create great anxiety to the ego, due to the intense energetic load they possess.
Not being able to defend himself from the intense suffering caused by this inner conflict, João imagines and makes the theme of love the only one capable of helping him gather such antagonistic forces.
His Soul recites a new poetic image.
But can a specific figure of Eros arise inside the Pantheon of imaginative possibilities that make up the imaginal world (a place where the images live and can only be accessed by imagination)?
In the banquet, Plato narrates (through the priestess Diotima) that Eros is not a god but a daimon, that is, he is an intermediate between the divine and the mortal, he lies half-way between the gods and men, he fulfills the void and, therefore, in him all is bound together. Eros is a mediator whose function is to interpret and transmit.
Plato reveals:
"Eros possesses a special power. He interprets between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods. He is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them and, therefore, in him all is bound together, all find their way. For God mingles not with man; but it is through this being that all the intercourse and converse of god with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on."
Eros, for being the son of Poros and Penia, reveals himself perpetually unsatisfied and restless, dearth in constant search for completeness, a subject in search of an object. He is psykhopompós like Hermes and he shares with Dionysus an inexorable living energy. He is a pure life instinct, an inner force that seeks to eroticize the relations in order to preserve what is proper to life.
It is not by chance that João's Soul chooses Eros to arise in this specific context. It's undoubtedly only through him that João has the possibility of bearing and of living together with such antagonistic and opposing forces.
Eros is Dynamis, the force that mobilizes the return to unity. It is to this unity, long missed, that João refers to when he writes the word "God" (the first word he writes), which he later on divides into two other words: "Reason" and "Emotion".
Love does to João what Jung called a transcendent function: an aspect of the individuation process that surpasses irreconcilable opposites. When he proposes Love as a mediator between Reason and Emotion, João, although unaware of the process, is referring to the capacity of Eros to act as a synthesizer, the one who reconciles and agglutinates distant domains. It is through the transcendental function of love that Reason and Emotion can communicate, surpass outdated positions and find a new space close to João's ego. Jung calls the attention to the fact that it is exactly the existence of this new mediator that will strengthen the ego, like a new attitude opening up to the conscious life. As a consequence, the egoic conscience will be strengthened.
For this process to take place, it is fundamental that the style of ego that João presents (having as basic characteristics: to promote secessions, to create valiant hierarchies, to propose the conflict and the fight of the contraries as the only fundamental condition for growth, and a wish to discriminate) yields to an imaginal ego, an ego directed to a more mythical conscience, more alert to the existence of powers or potentials of which the spokesman is no longer the centralized and controlling ego. An imaginal conscience marked by a polytheist thinking, which does not mean accepting or experiencing everything but rather making it possible for everything to be experienced. If by monotheism we mean exclusion, by polytheism we mean the possibility of acceptance. It means exercising a polytheist psychology that allows for choices in the presence of diversity, variety and multiplicity of images of the Soul.
João talks of love as being "a bridge which helps people connect these two places that are so very distant one from the other"; it is in this mediating space, on this bridge, in this intermediary region that the Greeks called Metaxy, that Eros is located, acts, and comes true. A region neither human nor divine, neither conscious nor unconscious, simply intercourse between regions. It is in this Metaxy, intermediary region where Eros can fly and burn with his arrows, that we find the realm of psychic reality: a place we should all go to, in search for the exercise of our Soul-making.
© 1999 Marcus Quintaes.
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Bibliography
Jung, C.G.- Tipos Psicológicos, ed. Vozes.
_____________-A Função Transcedente in: A Natureza da Psique, ed. Vozes.
Hillman, James - Encarando os Deuses, ed. Cultrix.
_________________- Re-visioning Psychology, ed. Harper & Row.
_________________- A Blue Fire, ed. Harper & Row.
_________________- An Inquiry into Image, ed. Spring, 1997.
_________________- Psicologia Arquetípica, ed. Cultrix.
Samuels, A.- Jung e os Pós-junguianos, ed. Imago.
Guggenbühl-Craig, A.- No Answer is still an Answer in: The 13 International Congress of Analytical Psychology, ed. Daimon.
Platão- Os Pensadores, ed.---.
Brandão, Junito- Mitologia Grega , Vol. I e II, ed. Vozes.
Freud, S.- Análise Terminável e Interminável, ESB, Vol. XXIII, ed. Imago.
Barros, Manoel- Livro das Ignoraçãs, ed. Record.
{/viewonly}
