Definitions - Psychological Types

[Admin]

Soul-Image


Soul-Image: The soul-image is a definite image (q.v.) among those produced by the unconscious. Just as the persona, or outer attitude, is represented in dreams by the images of certain persons who possess the outstanding qualities of the persona in especially marked form, so the soul, the inner attitude of the unconscious, is similarly represented by definite persons whose particular qualities correspond with those of the soul. Such an image is called a ‘soul-image‘. Occasionally these images are quite unknown or mythological figures. With men the soul, i.e. the anima, is usually figured by the unconscious in the person of a woman; with women it is a man. In every case where the individuality is unconscious, and therefore associated with the soul, the soul-image has the character of the same sex. In all those cases in which an identity with the persona (v. Soul) is present, and the soul accordingly is unconscious, the soul-image is transferred into, a real person. This person is the object of an intense love or an equally intense hatred (possibly even fear). The influence of such a person has the character of something immediate and absolutely compelling, since it always evokes an affective response. The affect depends upon the fact that a real conscious adaptation to the object who represents the soul-image is impossible. Because the objective relation is alike impossible and non-existent, the libido gets dammed up and explodes in a release of affect. Affects always occur where there is a failure of adaptation. A conscious adaptation to the object who represents the soul-image is impossible only when the subject is unconscious of the anima. Were he conscious of it, it could be distinguished from the object, whose immediate effects might then be resolved, since the potency of the object depends upon the projection of the soul-image.



For a man, a woman is best fitted to be the bearer of his soul-image, by virtue of the womanly quality of his soul; similarly a man, in the case of a woman. Wherever an unconditional, or almost magical, relation exists between the sexes, it is always a question of projection of the soul-image. Since such relations are common, just as frequently must the soul be unconscious, i.e. great numbers of men must be unaware of how they are related to the inner psychic processes. Because such unconsciousness goes always hand in hand with a correspondingly complete identification with the persona (v. Soul), it dearly follows that the latter also must occur very frequently. This accords with reality; for, as a matter of fact, large numbers of men are wholly identified with their outer attitude, and therefore have no conscious relation to their inner processes. But the converse may also happen; namely, where the soul-image is not projected, but remains with the subject; whereupon an identification with the soul is liable to result just in so far as the subject is himself convinced that his manner of behaviour to his inner processes is also his unique and actual character. In such a case, the unconsciousness of the persona results in its projection upon an object, more especially of the same sex, thus providing a foundation for many cases of more or less admitted homosexuality, and of father-transferences in men or mother-transferences in women. Such cases are always persons with defective external adaptation and comparative unrelatedness, because the identification with the soul begets an attitude with a predominant orientation towards the inner processes, whereby the object is deprived of its determining influence. Whenever the soul-image is projected, an unconditional, affective tie to the object appears. If it is not projected, a relatively unadapted state results, which Freud has partially described as narcissism. The projection of the soul-image offers a release from a too great preoccupation with the inner processes, in so far as the behaviour of the object harmonizes with the soul-image. The subject is thus enabled to live his persona, and to develop it further. In the long run, however, the object will scarcely be able to correspond consistently with the soul-image, although many women succeed, by constantly disregarding their own lives, in representing their husband’s soul-image for a very considerable time. The biological, feminine instinct assists them in this. A man may unconsciously do the same for his wife, only he is thereby prompted to deeds which, for good or evil, finally exceed his powers. In his case, also, the biological masculine instinct is an assistance. If the soul-image is not projected, a thoroughly morbid differentiation of the relation to the unconscious gradually develops. The subject is increasingly overwhelmed by unconscious contents, which his defective relation to the object makes him powerless to organize, or to put to any sort of use. Obviously, such contents as these very seriously prejudice the relation to the object. These attitudes only represent, of course, the two extremes, between which the more normal attitudes are to be found. The normal man, as we know, is not distinguished by any special clarity, purity, or depth, in the matter of psychological phenomena, but commonly inclines to a certain indistinctness in such matters. In men with a good-natured and inoffensive outer attitude, the soul-image, as a rule, has a rather malevolent character. A good literary example of this is the daemonic woman who accompanies Zeus in Spitteler’s “Olympischer Friihling.” For the idealistic woman, a depraved man is often a bearer of the soul-image; hence the ‘salvation phantasy‘ so frequent in such cases. The same thing often happens with men, where the prostitute is surrounded with the halo of a soul crying for succour

[Admin]

Subjective Plane


Subjective Plane: By interpretation upon the subjective plane, I understand that conception of a dream or phantasy in which the persons or conditions appearing therein are related to subjective factors entirely belonging to the subject’s own psyche. It is common knowledge that the image of an object existing in our psyche is never exactly like the object, but at most only similar. Although admittedly brought about through sense-perceptions and their apperception, it is actually the product of processes inherent in the psyche whose activity the object merely stimulates. Experience shows that the evidence of our senses very largely coincides with the qualities of the object, but our apperception is subject to well-nigh incalculable subjective influences, which render the correct knowledge of a human character extraordinarily difficult. Moreover, such a complex psychic factor as is presented by a human character offers only a very slight field for pure sense perception. Its cognition also demands ‘feeling-into’, reflection, and intuition. The final judgment that Issues from these complex factors is always of very doubtful tralue; necessarily, therefore, the image we form of a human object is, to a very large extent, subjectively conditioned. Hence, in practical psychology we should be well advised to differentiate the image or imago of a man quite definitely from his real existence. Not infrequently as a result of its extremely subjective origin, an imago is actually more an image of a subjective function-complex than of the object itself.



In the analytical treatment of unconscious products, therefore, it is essential that the imago shall not immediatety be assumed to be identical with the object; it is wiser to regard it as an image of the subjective relation to the object. This is what is meant by the consideration of a product upon the subjective plane.





The treatment of an unconscious product upon this plane results in the presence of subjective judgments and tendencies of which, the bearer is made the object When, therefpre, an object-image appears in an unconscious product, it is not definitely concerned with the real object per se, but just as much, possibly even more, with a subjective function-complex (v. Soul-image).



The application of meaning upon this plane yields us a comprehensive psychological explanation, not only of dreams but also of literary works, in which the individual figures represent relatively autonomous function-complexes in the psyche of the poet

[Admin]

Symbol


Symbol: The concept of a symbol should, in my view, be strictly differentiated from that of a mere sign. Symbolic and semiotic interpretations are entirely different things. In his book Ferrero does not speak of symbols in the strict sense, but of signs. For instance, the old custom of handing over a sod of turf at the sale of a piece of land, might be described as ‘symbolic’ in the vulgar use of the word; but actually it is purely semiotic in character. The piece of turf is a sign, or token, representing the whole estate. The winged wheel worn by the railway employes is not a symbol of the railway, but a sign that distinguishes the personnel of the railway. But the symbol always presupposes that the chosen expression is the best possible description, or formula, of a relatively unknown fact; a fact, however, which is none the less recognized or postulated as existing. Thus, when the winged-wheel badge of the railway employ is explained as a symbol, it is tantamount to saying that the man has to do with an unknown entity whose nature cannot be differently or better expressed than by a winged wheel. Every view which interprets the symbolic expression as an analogous or abbreviated expression of a known thing is semiotic. A conception which interprets the symbolic expression as the best possible formulation of a relatively unknown thing which cannot conceivably, therefore, be more clearly or characteristically represented is symbolic. A view which interprets the symbolic expression, as an intentional transcription or transformation of a known thing is allegoric. The explanation of the Cross as a symbol of Divine Love is scmiotic, since Divine Love describes the fact to be expressed better and more aptly than a cross, which can have many other meanings. Whereas that interpretation of the Cross is symbolic which puts it above all imaginable explanations, regarding it as an expression of an unknown and as yet incomprehensible fact of a mystical or transcendent psychological character, which simply finds its most striking and appropriate representation in the Cross.



In so far as a symbol is a living thing, it is the expression of a thing not to be characterized in any other or better way. The symbol is alive only in so far as it is pregnant with meaning. But, if its meaning is born out of it, i.e. if that expression should be found which formulates the sought, expected, or divined thing still better than the hitherto accepted symbol, then the symbol is dead, i.e. it possesses only a historical significance. We may still go on speaking of it as a symbol, under the tacit assumption that we are speaking of it as it was before its better expression had been born from it. The way in which St. Paul and the early mystical speculators handle the symbol of the Cross shows that for them it was a living symbol which represented the inexpressible in an unsurpassable way.



For every esoteric explanation the symbol is dead, since through esoterism it has been brought to a better expression (at least ostensibly), whereupon it merely serves as a conventional sign for associations which are more completely and better known elsewhere. Only for the exoteric standpoint is the symbol always living. An expression that stands for a known thing always remains merely a sign and is never a symbol. It is, therefore, quite impossible to make a living symbol, i.e. one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is thus manufactured never contains more than was put into it Every psychic product, in so far as it is the best possible expression at the moment for a fact as yet unknown or only relatively known, may be regarded as a symbol, provided also that we are prepared to accept the expression as designating something that is only divined and not yet clearly conscious.


Inasmuch as every scientific theory contains a hypothesis, and therefore an anticipatory designation of a fact still essentially unknown, it is a symbol. Furthermore, every psychological phenomenon is a symbol when we are willing to assume that it purports, or signifies, something different and still greater, something therefore which is withheld from present knowledge. This assumption is absolutely possible to every consciousness which is orientated to the deeper meaning of things, and to the possibilities such an attitude enfolds. Such an assumption is impossible only for this same consciousness when it has itself contrived an expression, merely to contain or affirm just as much as the purpose of its creation intended, as for example a mathematical term. For another consciousness, however, this restriction does not exist at all. It can also conceive the mathematical term as a symbol of an unknown psychic fact concealed within the purpose of its production, in so far as this fact is demonstrably unknown to the man who created the semiotic expression, and therefore could not be the object of any conscious use.



Whether a thing is a symbol or not depends chiefly upon the attitude of the consciousness considering it; as for instance, a mind that regards the given fact not merely as such but also as an expression of the yet unknown. Hence it is quite possible for a man to produce a fact which does not appear in the least symbolic to himself, although profoundly so to another. The converse is also possible. There are undoubtedly products whose symbolical character not merely depends upon the attitude of the considering consciousness, but manifests itself spontaneously in a symbolical effect upon the regarding subject. Such products are so fashioned that they must forfeit every sort of meaning, unless the symbolical one is conceded them. As a pure actuality, a triangle in which an eye is enclosed is so meaningless that it is impossible for the observer to regard it as mere accidental trifling. Such a figure immediately conjures up a symbolical conception of it This effect is supported either by a frequent and identical occurrence of the same figure, or by a particularly careful and arresting manner of production which is the actual expression of a particular value placed upon it.


Symbols that are without the spontaneous effect just described are either dead, i.e. outstripped by a better formulation, or else products whose symbolical nature depends exclusively upon the attitude of the observing consciousness. This attitude that conceives the given phenomenon as symbolic may be briefly described as the symbolical attitude. It is only partially justified by the behaviour of things; for the rest, it is the outcome of a definite view of life endowing the occurrence, whether great or small, with a meaning to which a certain deeper value is given than to pure actuality. This view of things stands opposed to another view, which lays the accent upon pure actuality, and subordinates meaning to facts. For this latter attitude there can be no symbol at all, wherever the symbolism depends exclusively upon the manner of consideration. But even for such an attitude symbols also exist: namely, those that prompt the observer to the conjecture of a hidden meaning. An image of a god with the head of a bull can certainly be explained as a human body with a bull’s head. But this explanation could scarcely hold the scales against the symbolic interpretation, since the symbol is too arresting to be entirely overlooked. A symbol that seems to obtrude its symbolical nature need not be alive. Its effect may be wholly restricted, for instance, to the historical or philosophical intellect It merely arouses intellectual or aesthetic interest. But a symbol really lives only when it is the best and highest possible expression of something divined but not yet known even to the observer. For under these circumstances it provokes unconscious participation. It advances and creates life. As Faust says: ”How differently this token works upon me!“.



The living symbol shapes and formulates an essential unconscious factor, and the more generally this factor prevails, the more general is the operation of the symbol; for in every soul it touches an associated chord. Since, on the one hand the symbol is the best possible expression of what is still unknown an expression, moreover, which cannot be surpassed for the given epoch it must proceed from the most complex and differentiated contemporary mental atmosphere. But since, on the other hand, the living symbol must embrace and contain that which relates a considerable group of men for such an effect to be within its power, it must contain just that which may be common to a large group of men. Hence, this can never be the most highly differentiated or the highest attainable, since only the very few could attain to, or understand it; but it must be something that is still so primitive that its omnipresence stands beyond all doubt. Only when the symbol comprises this something, and brings it to the highest possible expression, has it any general efficacy. Therein consists the potent and, at the same time, redeeming effect of a living, social symbol.



All that I have now said concerning the social symbol holds good for the individual symbol. There are individual psychic products, whose manifest symbolic character at once compels a symbolical conception. For the individual, they possess a similar functional significance as the social symbol for a larger human group. Such products, however, never have an exclusively conscious or unconscious source, but proceed from a uniform co-operation of both. Purely conscious products are no more convincingly symbolic, per se, than purely unconscious products, and vice versa; it devolves, therefore, upon the symbolical attitude of the observing consciousness to endow them with the character of a symbol. But they may equally well be conceived as mere causally conditioned facts, in much the same sense as one might regard the red exanthema of scarlet fever as a symbol of the disease. In such a case, of course, it is correct to speak of a ‘symptom‘, not of a symbol. In my view, therefore, Freud is justified, when, from his standpoint, he speaks of symptomatic, rather than symbolical actions; since, for him, these phenomena are not symbolic in the sense here defined, but are symptomatic signs of a definite and generally known underlying process. There are, of course, neurotics who regard their unconscious products, which are primarily morbid symptoms, as symbols of supreme importance. Generally, however, this is not the case. On the contrary, the neurotic of to-day is only too prone to regard a product that may actually be full of significance, as a ‘symptom‘.


The fact that there are two distinct and mutually contradictory views, eagerly advocated on either side, concerning the meaning and the meaninglessness of things, can only show that processes clearly exist which express no particular meaning, being in fact mere consequences, or symptoms; while there are other processes which bear within them a hidden meaning, processes which have not merely arisen from something, but also tend to become something, and are therefore symbols. It is left to our judgment and criticism to decide whether the thing we are dealing with is a symptom or a symbol.



The symbol is always a creation of an extremely complex nature, since data proceeding from every psychic function have entered into its composition. Hence its nature is neither rational nor irrational. It certainly has one side that accords with reason, but it has also another side that is inaccessible to reason; for not only the data of reason, but also the irrational data of pure inner and outer perception, have entered into its nature. The prospective meaning and pregnant significance of the symbol appeals just as strongly to thinking as to feeling, while its peculiar plastic imagery when shaped into sensuous form stimulates sensation just as much as intuition. The living symbol cannot come to birth in an inert or poorly-developed mind, for such a man will rest content with the already existing symbols offered by established tradition. Only the passionate yearning of a highly developed mind, for whom the dictated symbol no longer contains the highest reconciliation in one expression, can create a new symbol. But, inasmuch as the symbol proceeds from his highest and latest mental achievement and must also include the deepest roots of his being, it cannot be a onesided product of the most highly differentiated mental functions, but must at least have an equal source, in the lowest and most primitive motions of his psyche. For this co-operation of antithetic states to be at all possible, they must both stand side by side in fullest conscious opposition. Such a condition necessarily entails a violent disunion with oneself, even to a point where thesis and antithesis mutually deny each other, while the ego is still forced to recognize its absolute participation in both. But, should there exist a subordination of one part, the symbol will be disproportionately the product of the other, and in corresponding degree will be less a symbol than a symptom, viz. the symptom of a repressed antithesis. But, to the extent in which a symbol is merely a symptom, it also lacks the redeeming effect, since it fails to express the full right to existence of every portion of the psyche, constantly calling to mind the suppression of the antithesis, although consciousness may omit to take this into account.


But, when the opposites are given a complete equality of right, attested to by the ego’s unconditioned participation in both thesis and antithesis, a suspension of the will results; for the will can no longer be operative while every motive has an equally strong counter-motive by its side. Since life cannot tolerate suspension, a damming up of vital energy results, which would lead to an insupportable condition from the tension of the opposites did not a new reconciling function arise which could lead above and beyond the opposites. It arises naturally, however, from the regression of the libido effected by its damming up. Since progress is made impossible by the total disunion of the will, the libido streams backwards, the stream Sows back as it were to its source, fa, the suspension and inactivity of the conscious brings about an activity of the unconscious where all the differentiated functions have their common, archaic root, and where that promiscuity of contents exists of which the primitive mentality still exhibits numerous remainders.



Through the activity of the unconscious, a content is unearthed which is constellated by thesis and antithesis in equal measure, and is related to both in a compensatory (q.v.) relation. Since this content discloses a relation to both thesis and antithesis, it forms a middle territory, upon which the opposites can be reconciled. Suppose, for example, we conceive the opposition to be sensuality versus spirituality; then, by virtue of its wealth of spiritual associations, the mediatory content born from the unconscious offers a welcome expression to the spiritual thesis, and by virtue of its plastic sensuousness it embraces the sensual antithesis. But the ego rent between thesis and antithesis finds in the uniting middle territory its counterpart, its reconciling and unique expression, and eagerly seizes upon it, in order to be delivered from its division. Hence, the energy created by the tension of the opposites flows into the mediatory expression, protecting it against the conflict of the opposites which forthwith begins both about it and within, since both are striving to resolve the new expression in their own specific sense. Spirituality tries to make something spiritual out of the unconscious expression, while sensuality aims at something sensual: the one wishing to create science and art from the new expression, the other sensual experience. The resolution of the unconscious product into either is successful only when the incompletely divided ego clings rather more to one side than the other.



Should one side succeed in resolving the unconscious product, it does not fall alone to that side, but the ego goes with it; whereupon an identification of the ego with the most-favoured function (v. Inferior Function) inevitably follows. This results in a subsequent repetition of the process of division upon a higher plane. But if, through the resoluteness of the ego, neither thesis nor antithesis can succeed in resolving the unconscious product, this is sufficient demonstration that the unconscious expression is superior to both sides.


The steadfastness of the ego and the superiority of the mediatory expression over thesis and antithesis are to my mind correlates, each mutually conditioning the other. It would appear at times as though the fixity of the inborn individuality were the decisive factor, at times as though the mediatory expression possessed a superior force prompting the ego to absolute steadfastness. But, in reality, it is quite conceivable that the firmness and certainty of the individuality on the one hand, and the superior force of the mediatory product on the other, are merely tokens of one and the same fact. When the mediatory product is preserved in this way, it fashions 'a raw product' which is for construction, not for dissolution, and which becomes a common object for both thesis and antithesis; thus it becomes a new content that governs the whole attitude, putting an end to the division, and forcing the energy of the opposites into a common channel. The suspension of life is, therewith, abolished, and the individual life can compass a greater range with new energy and new goals.



In its totality I have named the process just described the transcendent function, and here I am not using the term ‘function‘ in the sense of a basic function, but rather as a complex-function compounded of other functions, neither with ‘transcendent’ do I wish to designate any metaphysical quality, but merely the fact that by this function a transition is made possible from the one attitude to the other. The raw material, when elaborated by the thesis and antithesis, which in its process of formation reconciles the opposites, is the living symbol. In the essential raw-ness of its material, defying time and dissolution, lies its prospective significance, and in the form which its crude material receives through the influence of the opposites, lies its effective power over all the psychic functions.



Indications of the foundations of the symbol-forming process are to be found in the scanty records of the initiation-period experienced by founders of religions, e.g. Jesus and Satan, Buddha and Mara, Luther and the Devil, Zwingli and his previous worldly life; also Goethe’s conception of the rejuvenation of Faust through the contract with the Devil. Towards the end of Zarathustra we find a striking example of the suppression of the antithesis in the figure of the ”ugliest man”.

[Admin]

Thinking


Thinking: This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (v. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking. Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as ”phantasying”. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking.



To my mind, a simple stringing together of representations, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking is not thinking at all, but mere presentation. The term ‘thinking’ should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one’s intention or not.



The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition. Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.



Thinking that is regulated by feeling, I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thought dependent upon feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle, but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favour of the aims of feeling.

[Admin]

Transcendent Function


Transcendent Function (v. Symbol).

[Admin]

Type


Type: A type is a specimen, or example, which reproduces in a characteristic way the character of a species or general class. In the narrower meaning used in this particular work, a type is a characteristic model of a general attitude (q.v.) occurring in many individual forms. From a great number of existing or possible attitudes I have, in this particular research, brought four into especial relief; namely, those that are primarily orientated by the four basic psychological functions (v. Function) viz. thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. In so far as such an attitude is habitual, thus lending a certain stamp to the character of the individual, I speak of a psychological type. These types, which are based upon the root-functions and which one can term the thinking, the feeling, the intuitive, and the sensational types, may be divided into two classes according to the quality of the respective basic function : viz. the rational and the irrational. The thinking and the feeling types belong to the former. The intuitive .and the sensational to the latter, (v. Rational; Irrational). A further differentiation into two classes is permitted by the preferential movements of the libido, namely introversion and extroversion (q.v.). All the basic types can belong equally well to the one or the other class, according to the predominance of introversion or extraversion in the general attitude. A thinking type may belong either to the introverted or the extraverted class, and the same holds good for any other type. The differentiation into rational and irrational types is another point of view, and has nothing to do with introversion and extraversion.



In two previous contributions upon the theory of types I did not differentiate the thinking and feeling from the introverted and extraverted types, but identified the thinking type with the introverted, and the feeling with the extraverted. But a more complete investigation of the material has shown me that we must treat the introversion and the extraversion types as superordinated categories to the function types. Such a division, moreover, entirely corresponds with experience, since, for example, there are, undoubtedly two sorts of feeling-types, the attitude of one being orientated more by his feeling-experience, the other more by the object.

[Admin]

Unconscious



Unconscious: The concept of the unconscious is for me an exclusively psychological concept, and not a philosophical concept in the metaphysical sense. In my view, the unconscious is a psychological boundary-concept, which covers all those psychic contents or processes which are not conscious, i.e. not related to the ego in a perceptible way. My justification for speaking of the existence of unconscious processes at all is derived purely and solely from experience, and in particular from psychopathological experience, where we have undoubted proof that, in a case of hysterical amnesia, for instance, the ego knows nothing of the existence of extensive psychological complexes, and in the next moment a simple hypnotic procedure is enough to bring the lost contents to complete reproduction. From thousands of such experiences we may claim a certain justification for speaking of the existence of unconscious psychic contents. The question as to the state in which an unconscious content exists, when not attached to consciousness, is withheld from every possibility of cognition. It is, therefore, quite superfluous to hazard conjectures about it. Conjectures concerning cerebration and the whole physiological process, etc., really belong to such phantasies. It is also quite impossible to specify the range of the unconscious, i.e. what contents it embraces. Only experience can decide such questions. We know by experience that conscious contents can become unconscious through loss of their energic value. This is the normal process of 'forgetting'. That these contents do not simply get lost beneath the threshold of consciousness we know from the experience that occasionally, under suitable conditions, they can again emerge from their submersion after a decade or so, e.g. in dreams or under hypnosis in the form of cryptamnesia or through the revival of associations with the forgotten content.



Furthermore, experience teaches us that conscious contents can fall beneath the threshold of consciousness through ‘intentional forgetting’, without a too considerable depreciation of value what Freud terms the repression of a painful content. A similar effect is produced by the dissociation of the personality, or the disintegration of consciousness, as a result of a violent affect or nervous shock or through the dissolution of the personality in schizophrenia (Bleuler).



Similarly, we know from experience that sense-perceptions which, either because of their slight intensity or because of the deviation of attention, do not attain to conscious apperception, none the less become psychic contents through unconscious apperception, which again may be demonstrated by hypnosis, for example. The same thing may happen with certain conclusions and other combinations which remain unconscious on account of their too slight energy-content, or because of the deflection of attention. Finally, experience also teaches us that there exist unconscious psychic associations for instance, mythological images which have never been the object of consciousness, and hence must proceed wholly from unconscious activity.



To this extent experience gives us certain directing-points for our assumption of the existence of unconscious contents. But it can affirm nothing as to what the unconscious content may possibly be. It is idle to hazard guesses about it, because what the whole unconscious content could be is quite incalculable. What is the furthest limit of a subliminal sense-perception? Is there any sort of measurement either for the extent or the subtlety of unconscious combinations? When is a forgotten content totally effaced? To such questions there is no answer.



Our experience hitherto of the nature of unconscious contents permits us, however, to make a certain general division of them. We can distinguish a personal unconscious, which embraces all the acquisitions of the personal existence hence the forgotten, the repressed, the subliminally perceived, thought and felt. But, in addition to these personal unconscious contents, there exist other contents which do not originate in personal acquisitions but in the inherited possibility of psychic functioning in general, viz. in the inherited brain-structure. These are the mythological associations those motives and images which can spring anew in every age and clime, without historical tradition or migration. I term these contents the collective unconscious. Just as conscious contents are engaged in a definite activity, the unconscious contents so experience teaches us are similarly active. Just as certain results or products proceed from conscious psychic activity, there are also products of unconscious activity, as for instance dreams and phantasies. It is vain to speculate upon the share that consciousness takes in dreams. A dream presents itself to us: we do not consciously produce it Conscious reproduction, or even the perception of it, certainly effects a considerable alteration in it, without, however, doing away with the basic fact of the unconscious source of the productive activity.



The functional relation of the unconscious processes to consciousness we may describe as compensatory (q.v.), since experience proves that the unconscious process pushes subliminal material to the surface that is constellated by the conscious situation hence all those contents which could not be lacking in the picture of the conscious situation if everything were conscious. The compensatory function of the unconscious becomes all the more manifest, the more the conscious attitude maintains a onesided standpoint; this is confirmed by abundant examples in the realm of pathology

[Admin]

Will

Will: I regard as will that sum of psychic energy which is disposable to consciousness. In accordance with this conception, the process of the will would be an energic process that is released by conscious motivation. A psychic process, therefore, which is conditioned by unconscious motivation I would not include under the concept of the will. Will is a psychological phenomenon that owes its existence to culture and moral education, and is, therefore largely lacking in the primitive mentality.