Personality Cafe banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read this article in Journal of analytical psychology vol.1 from year 1955 and found this great explanation about archetypes from it, so i thought i would share small part of the article:

Archetypal Themes in Depression
ROBERT F. HOBSON

Archetypes are understood to be the typical forms in which all experience is patterned, organized, and progressively integrated, and hence cannot be adequately described apart from the "matter" in which they are observed. Jung's differentiation of personal unconscious from collective unconscious and of reductive from synthetic analysis, is not taken to imply an absolute distinction, but to refer to different modes of description and treatment of psychological material, which special reference to either "personal" history or to "collective" forms. Individual archetypal themes are clear in certain abnormal states and particular phases of development as, for example, in some phantasies of psychotics and young children, but are most easily served in mythology. Hence, Jung has used the study of myths to amplify, understand and modify developmental processes in patients. It is important to remember, however that the myth is a complex image and is not synonymous with the archetype, by which is meant the form and not the particular contents of the image. This form is most usefully conceived, not as a static pattern, but as a progressive theme and it is the tendency to develop experience in universally typical forms which is considered to be innate.

Here is link to the article(which you need permissions to read) Archetypal Themes in Depression - HOBSON - 2006 - Journal of Analytical Psychology - Wiley Online Library

When it comes to beebean type and other crap that relates archetypes to functions and well besides having a weird definition for functions themselves, they use some different definition of the word 'archetype' aswell. Add that to the fact that those 8 function models doesent really work and where they do seem to work, they can be explained with 4 function model aswell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
The Beebe model gives the ego functions too much credit as complexes that manifest the archetypal roles. It is more likely that the so called "archetypal possessions" or over-identification with the archetypes is due to ego-weakness or undifferentiation rather than having say an Enantiodromia of the ego-syntonic functions errupt as archetypal possessed shadow functions. i.e. psychopathology is usually not caused by a one-sidedess of consciousness but by a weakness in consciousness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The Beebe model gives the ego functions too much credit as complexes that manifest the archetypal roles. It is more likely that the so called "archetypal possessions" or over-identification with the archetypes is due to ego-weakness or undifferentiation rather than having say an Enantiodromia of the ego-syntonic functions errupt as archetypal possessed shadow functions. i.e. psychopathology is usually not caused by a one-sidedess of consciousness but by a weakness in consciousness.
That sounds a bit weird to me. First of all ego cant be undifferentiated, as it is defined as "central operating system in the field of consciousness" and things that are consciously operated are differentiated. Next if your ego is too strong, it means that you are relating too much on your dom(and possibly aux function amongst other things unrelated to typology) and thus repress their opposites, that means most of all the inferior and to a lesser degree tert. Even Jung said that humbling of the ego is required in developing the opposite things of the ego, but once those things have been differentiated more, the ego strengthens as more stuff gets differentiated.

What comes to "shadow functions" shadow is not about functions, but about completely different things than typology. For example an honest person has dishonest shadow(and other way around) etc. But as shadow is undifferentiated things and undifferentiated things are attached to each other, the shadow and other archetypes come through undifferentiated functions the most.

Also one sidedness of consciousness = weakness of other things in consciousness, hence the one sidedness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
That sounds a bit weird to me. First of all ego cant be undifferentiated, as it is defined as "central operating system in the field of consciousness" and things that are consciously operated are differentiated. Next if your ego is too strong, it means that you are relating too much on your dom(and possibly aux function amongst other things unrelated to typology) and thus repress their opposites, that means most of all the inferior and to a lesser degree tert. Even Jung said that humbling of the ego is required in developing the opposite things of the ego, but once those things have been differentiated more, the ego strengthens as more stuff gets differentiated.

What comes to "shadow functions" shadow is not about functions, but about completely different things than typology. For example an honest person has dishonest shadow(and other way around) etc. But as shadow is undifferentiated things and undifferentiated things are attached to each other, the shadow and other archetypes come through undifferentiated functions the most.

Also one sidedness of consciousness = weakness of other things in consciousness, hence the one sidedness.
The posted article suggested a mechanism whereto the "cohesiveness" or integrity of the ego seems to fliux through a destruction-transformation process through it's interaction with the unconscious where the origin of the self lies. When the ego is well-differentiated, it can make clear distinctions between the functional roles whereas the fragmented ego (I refer to it as an undifferentiated state), cannot make distinctions between content (e.g. real-imaginary in psychosis). The depressive cycles are essentially large ebbs between the disintegration and re-integration of the ego (usually felt in terms of the loss/gain of meaningful contents in awareness). I cannot say what causes the ego to so drastically shift in permeability w.r.t. content; such a tendency suggests a stronger pull from complexes due to psychic woundings earlier in life. Perhaps you're right that in the case of depression and bipolar mania, it may be the overidentification with certain contents within the ego that makes for the drastic let-downs.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top