Abstract: The article investigates the Neoplatonic Self notion. In the historical record the ideal of personality and the psychological notion of Self have taken many forms. Also the modern ideals of Self are discussed and criticized, such as the 'puer aeternus' (eternal youth) and the 'primal' or 'uroboric' Self. The author argues that Carl Jung's Self archetype is one-sidedly immanent--there is also a transcendental aspect of Self. In the heated debate between Porphyry and Iamblichus, both were right in their own way.
Keywords: Plotinus, Neoplatonism, primary narcissism, grandiose self, ego-Self axis, Erich Neumann, Michael Fordham, psychoanalysis, puer aeternus, Romantic era.
Read the article here:
http://www.two-paths.com/iamblichus.htm
(http://mlwi.magix.net/iamblichus.htm)
Mats Winther
Replies
Yes, but in Neoplatonism the fall occurs from the One, i.e. from God, so the fall does not occur from an archetype within the soul. Iamblichus introduced "the one of the soul", which is the correspondence of God within the psyche. It serves as the goal and center of personality, just as the Self does in Jungian theory. So this is the immanent version of the One. However, the soul has fallen from the transcendental version of the One, and not from the immanent. So, in my view, it is a misconception that the ego emerges from the immanent Self.
As a besides, I have today augmented my "Happy Neurotic Island" article with a chapter about Kurt Gödel.
/Mats
Speaking of Gödel: Mats, are you familiar with the name Max Tegmark?
Mats, I think I'm going to sue you. Not.
While impossibility of artificial consciousness should be obvious, we still have articles such as this one: http://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-worried-rise-machines-000100765.html That idiotic example of "superintelligence" putting grins on people's faces might be just as well programmable on Commodore 64.
Thanks for the clarification mats. I am not all familar with the Neoplatonists literature.
I might add Jung once said somewhere and where that is i do not know, words to the effect that we percieve or or... apprehend God through the archetype of the self.... I just threw that in as an after thought on your coment.
Precisely Mats!!!
Evidently, many theorists have substituted the grandiose-exhibitionistic self for the Jungian definition of Self. What is behind this development? Presumably, they have identified their own experience of grandiosity with Jung’s notion of Self. “Aha, this is what Jung means by the Self!” Yet, normal and well-balanced people do not experience an egocidal urge. Nor do they experience a feeling of grandiosity or of being the centre of the universe. The edifices of Winnicott, Neumann, Kohut, Fordham and Edinger, lack relevance to normal psychology, but are characteristic of the neurotic psyche.
Mats I agree with the majority of your exposition on primary narcissism. I might reemphasize the concept of the self as embedded in that theory is so puerile and superficial it shouldn't even be mentioned on the same page as Jung's concept of the self. As you document, it has been effectively refuted and belongs on the trash pile in the history of ideas.
The question is why this narcissistic model emerged in the first place. Once again I don't consider the narcissistic phenomenon to be a neurotic maladaptation. I suspect Freud universalized his own inner psychologic dynamic and applied it to every man. I suspect his narcisissistic sense of self emanated from the abnormal relationship he had with his own mother. She obviously psychologically sexualized her relationship with him as a child and made him her prince charming. In exchange for his avid cooperation. He is in love with himself because his mother put him on a pedestal and made him into the object for her adoration provied he did what she commanded. Hence his adult obsession with sex and his daft effort to universalize it as the basis for a psychology of every man. Oedipus wrecks. In my opinion this is abnormal psychology but it is not neurotic psychology. I give him a lot of credit for finding his own heroic myth and realizing it was the psychological basis for his own personality development. The Greeks the psychological masters that they were treated oedipus with deference rather than castigating him.
Your correlation of Neumans identification of the self with mother in the context of your thoughts on primary narcissism was brilliant .... Thanks again for uploading your thought provoking essay. I have skipped ahead and enjoyed your thoughts on geigerich ... We have reached some of the same conclusions in his regard but coming from different directions
I question if such chockingly inferior theory could be produced by a healthy mind, even of the lowest intellectual capacity. I hold that such superficial thought can only be produced by the neurotic personality. A normal person would feel ashamed of saying such things. The incapacity of questioning themselves, on the other hand, is characteristic for the neurotic personality with a narcissistic bent. mats winther
The truth is they are all right.
The truth is at the bottom of the bottomless pit.
We are not meant to see the whole picture but be satisfied with our own version of the ultimate. That statement puts me in Jung's wing and I am okay with that. Since the whole must remain opaque to keep us thinking, going, speculating we might as well pick the version that resonates with our own soul. I believe in omnipresence of God..
Obviously they (all those speculation) have a germ of truth for you, and you probably find none of them totally satisfying. That is your karma to keep wondering and searching.
Thank you for sharing your insightful comments.
"The truth is at the bottom of the bottomless pit."
And this may in part be why Jung did not create a psychological system in contradistinction to Freuds. We are up against the unknown/the Unconscious/the internal aspect of nature. It has only become the subject of intellectual study in our recent history. Jung provided us with empirical observations of elements in the Unconscious derived from his patients problems, his own self analysis and his Heraklean search through the literature. The shadow, individuation, anima, self. animus et al are all the product of his empirical quest. He did not create general field theories built around his observations of the individuation process or the shadow. He did work at orientating and reconnecting us with our own souls/uncondcious via his alchemical studies and through works like Aeion et al. But the dogmatic absolutism of Freud was alien to him. His respect for the Unconscious was too great.
The pit may be bottomless but jung provided us with the tools to get a closer approximation of the truth than we previously had. You are right about karma because as soon as one solves one problem the solution almost immediately creates a whole new set of questions.. Thanks for the appreciation.
That essay and this discussion are seriously challenging my limits of understanding. I think that this article has something to do with what we are talking about here (for instance mood-altering vs. mind-altering): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/arts/05conn.html?pagewanted=print... - A Mind-Altering Drug Altered a Culture as Well
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 9 Next