Introduction
C G Jung's formulation of the concept of the archetype he called the `Archetype of Wholeness', or the Self, is fundamental to Jungian or analytical psychology. In this matter Jung steps beyond all mainstream psychologies. He acknowledges not simply the unconscious, as all that which is outside consciousness, but an organising and guiding principle within the greater psyche, and he enters the domain of what he himself acknowledges to be metaphysical. I quote:
"...the Self is a borderline concept, which I call a symbol because it expresses something we cannot express otherwise, because we simply don't understand it. The idea of the Self is really unknown ground. The psychological definition is that the Self is the totality of consciousness and unconsciousness, and that sounds pretty definite, we seem to know what consciousness is and to have a fairly clear idea about the unconscious. But to say we know the unconscious is going too far; we only know of it.... A concept that contains a definite factor like consciousness and an indefinite factor like unconsciousness is not scientific....it is metaphysical in its nature per definition: it overreaches itself."
"Nietzsche's Zarathustra" p. 413-4
But the Self, for Jung, also stands paradoxically both outside and within the individual psyche. It is a priori to the individual ego, yet requiring of its conscious cooperation. Jung's conception of the Self and the ego's relationship to it is very radical in its essence. In positing such an all encompassing guiding principle but suggesting that the ego in not simply a problematic encumbrance, but an essential factor in the Self's expression in human life, he moves into uncharted territory. Thus we are presented not with the dilemma of how to rid ourselves of the ego (or deny the unconscious) but how to bring it `under the aegis' of the Self, and this is the essence of that journey which Jung called individuation.
Defining Ego and Self:
If one takes the point that the ego is inherently related to and expressive of the Self it becomes almost impossible to define either it, or the Self, without reference to the other.
Whilst the ego is the seat of our subjective identity and is in its infancy to a large degree identical with the persona, this is a very limited and limiting definition of the ego as an archetypal structure in the human psyche. Thus defined it is not only subjective in nature but essentially conditioned by external cultural conditions. It has, as such, a fundamentally extroverted and external orientation to the world in so far as that view is maintained.
The ego is, however, not simply a backdrop for our collectively conditioned and extroverted identity. It has also an innate capacity to act as a vehicle for all aspects of the psyche and to become identified with, or expressive of them. When a person is in the grip of a complex we see this situation clearly and she or he is often acting contrary to his or her conscious self image. But the ego is not only subject to unconscious intrusions, it can also consciously mediate the emergence of such unconscious contents, including the urgings of the Self. Both of these processes bring the danger of inflation and `possession' for even the consciously mediating ego is a limited entity contending with processes driven by forces beyond its immediate comprehension.
Such processes can create considerable inner tension if the contents pushing up from the unconscious are contradictory to the persona identity to which the ego is attached for external adaptive purposes. So the ego is faced with a conundrum. What to do about these aspects which challenge and even threaten the persona as its externally founded identity? This is a matter I will return to in due course in looking at the individuation process.
The ego as the centre of waking consciousness is a moving point of focus susceptible to inner and outer stimuli. If the ego seeks too broad a perspective its focus becomes necessarily less sharp, and likewise, if it seeks too sharp a focus it loses breadth of vision. In this sense the ego is like a microscope (or telescope) which as one increases magnification can take in less and less of the view and as one increases the area of view loses definition. Jung uses many analogies to describe the ego consciousness in relation to the Self and the following are taken from the 1934-9 "Nietzsche's Zarathustra" Seminars:
"consciousness is .... absolutely indispensable to the Self because it is the organ of awareness of the self."
"Nietzsche's Zarathustra" p.408
"The ego consciousness is a smaller circle contained within a bigger one, but that is not an undervaluation or depreciation of consciousness, for that very small circle may be of an extreme importance, even of sublime importance, in comparison with the vast expanse of the unconscious psyche."
"...our consciousness may also be like a planet revolving around a central invisible sun, namely, round the presumable centre of the unconscious, which is called the Self because that is the centre of the unconscious and the conscious."
Another way of looking at the ego is as though it were a threshold or gateway between the inner and outer or psychic and physical realities. That is like a doorway between two realms. This is a motif in many legends and shammanic world views where specific places in the physical world are seen as entries into the fairy realm or the world of spirits. But not only is it the threshold itself but also a participant in either or both of these realities. This participating ego is for most of us usually away wandering in our outer (or less frequently inner) lives, identified with the events there-in. In this case much can come and go between the two realms, unobserved by the wandering ego, which may affect one's life.
The ego can also, however, be a gatekeeper at the threshold and observer of whatever comes and goes through that doorway. It is in fact a major function of dreams to monitor all that goes on and attempt to bring the ego's attention to matters that may affect the overall well being of the person if left unattended to. In other words dreams can be signals to the ego to attend more closely at the threshold of consciousness. The ego which attends to its dreams is using one of the tools given it by which it can refine its observational skills and see more consciously in all of life. In this way the ego is able to develop a degree of detachment in outer life which allows it to be less lost in identification with its activities and more aware of the ever-present unconscious psyche.
Historically that archetype called by Jung the `Self', has been know in all cultures and religions through the agency of what Jung called the Imago Dei, the image of God. That this image may in fact be a many faceted one, a pantheon of gods and goddesses is indicative of the nature of the self rather than of some inferiority or lack of development in the culture /religion which holds such a view. Another multifaceted view of the Self is in the Eastern system of seven chakras, which Jung's discusses as each representing a unique level of experience of the Self. In fact even in Christianity with its claim to monotheism we in fact see a triple faced god of Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit, which echoes the long tradition of triple faced images of the great mother goddesses.
Of course already in speaking of the image of god/Self we have implied a knowing conscious- ness, and so at least from a human perspective, the notion of Self and ego is again seemingly inherently linked. It is arguable that the whole notion of the Self archetype implies the ego's existence and Jung in fact suggests just that when he says:
"The Self, like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves. It is, so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the ego."
"one could just as well call the ego-centrism of consciousness a reflection or imitation of the self-centrism of the unconscious."
To describe or define the Self is, to paraphrase Jung, to try to define that which is incommensurable with human understanding, a mystery about which our knowledge can only be limited because that is the nature of consciousness. To believe otherwise is to fall into our `god almightiness' as Jung phrased it. So I will confine myself largely to what has already been said by those who appear to have spoken from within the darkness of inspirations which are the gates to that mystery.
"...the Self is a living symbol because it designates something which we know exists; we know there is a totality of consciousness and unconsciousness because we are the living examples of it. The Self expresses our acknowledgement of a thing that is actually in existence, but of which we do not know enough. It overreaches us, it is bigger than we are....there have been other expressions.... The Self has been expressed by the figure of Christ,.....the lapis philosophorum,...the womb, or the gold,.....the Grail was a symbol of the Self, and the cross....or certain gods....the Self has nearly always been represented by the god-man."
Jung refers in the Nietzsche's Zarathustra's to many differing religious/philosophical traditions in showing the universality of knowledge of the Self and its mysterious and ineffable quality.
"He by whom it (Brahman = the Self) is not thought, by him it is thought; He by whom is is thought, knows it not. It is not understood by those who understand it, it is understood by those who do not understand it."
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."
"....the ocean is always the symbol of the collective unconscious. It is an all embracing general symbol, and the self....is also the ocean....So the Self is the whole collective unconscious, the origin and the end of life, the origin of rain and of all the rivers, of the whole universe, the end of all distinctiveness."
To make a Buddhist reference;
"to practice dharma is to know the truth of ones own being and to perceive the higher will that runs through all of life."
This latter is the clearly in keeping with Jung's conception of the Self/God. Finally I quote Jung referring to the Christian myth:
" .....since Christ as man corresponds to the ego, and as God to the Self, he is at once both part and whole......" and that "...this would be equivalent to the highest possible state of completeness or perfection".
The Self and the Physical World
The notion of Christ as man corresponding to the ego also brings us to the question to the place of the physical being in the expression of the Self. This is a matter which Jung addresses possibly more directly and thoroughly in the Nietzsche Zarathustra Seminars than anywhere else in his work. It is important to see the body too as part of the equation and we see here that Jung clearly indicates that one cannot simply adopt an overly spiritual attitude in which the life of the ego `falling in line with the Self', can be lived by denying the body and physical life in general. I will, however, firstly quote Paul Davies, the physicist, reflecting on Alfred North Whitehead's attitude to physical reality:
"physical reality is a network linking what he termed `actual occasions', these being more than mere events, for they are invested with a freedom and an internal experience that are lacking in the mechanistic view of the world. Central to Whitehead's philosophy is that God is responsible for ordering the world, not through direct action, but by providing the various potentialities which the physical universe is then free to actualise. In this way God does not compromise the essential openness and indeterminism of the universe but is nevertheless in a position to encourage a trend towards good."
Such a view is clearly in keeping with Jung's view of the Self at work in the actual physical life of the individual through its primary vehicle, the physical body, as we can see from the following:
"The body is the expression of a preexisting uniqueness.....and if the body is created by the Self, and the Self is called a uniqueness, then we identify this uniqueness with the uniqueness of the moment of creation."
"The body is, of course, also a concretisation, or a function, of that unknown thing (the Self or Alfred North Whitehead's God) which produces the psyche as well as the body; the difference we make between the psyche and the body is artificial."
"the psyche of modern man is in open revolt against this one-sidedness (the Christian attitude of sacrificing everything to the spirit) and forces to seek a new way that allows him to live the body as well as well as the spirit."
"...one has to link the body to the Self, because the distinct body is the distinct appearance of the Self in three dimensional space.......you cannot say the mind is a function of the Self without saying the body is a function of the Self.
This bringing the body onto an equal footing with the spiritual/psychic perspectives is a vital aspect of Jung's view of the Self. The body, and the world/universe, as expressions of the Self must also have innate or fated qualities with which we tamper at our own peril. To bring them under the aegis of the Self raises real questions about our attitude to the world and our belief that we can solve all its problems by human interference. If we accept Jung's and Whitehead's views just how inflated we have already become? Must we not rather accept that each and every aspect of physical reality has its place and purpose which if we seek to alter unwittingly may have far reaching consequences. Some alternative therapies have begun to address this problem via the view that illness is purposive and aiming to call our attention to broader psycho-somatic issues of the whole being. But can we go even further and ask, for example, whether even some incurable physical afflictions such as so called deformities are in fact not so much wrongnesses but expressions of the Self which we cannot yet comprehend?
We live in a time which increasingly devalues the material by making it the playing thing/raw material of the alienated modern ego. Within this framework illness, deformity and affliction are seen as (potentially) preventable wrongnesses rather than aspects of the individual's fate, expressing as yet incomprehensible meanings for which the Self is responsible. This is an ego attitude in which scientific materialism is a powerful unconscious compensation for an overly spiritual and yet increasingly atheistic world view. The seeds of this Jung saw in Nietzsche's view that God was dead and he pointed out that rather than being dead God/the Self had, unbeknownst to Nietzsche, become invisible. He says:
"you can see throughout the book that Nietzsche never gets rid of him; for God is the unknown partner, the real partner of man. Unnamed and not visible, he is still there."
Many modern scientists believe their theories obviate a need for the existence of God and in so doing they, like Nietzsche, are proclaiming that God is dead. More and more, like Nietzsche, they and we are now collectively paying with an infectious and destructive madness which inhabits the very soul of society, for such unconscious hubris.
The Experience of the Self
As with defining the Self describing the experience of the Self is fraught with dangers. One risks inflationary or delusory excursions which serve more to heighten one's sense of self importance than to truly illuminate the matter. So I refer once again to the ancient Tao Te Ching of Lao Tsu which in part seventy two says:
"When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster.... ...Therefore the sage knows himself but makes no show, Has self respect but is not arrogant. He lets go of this and chooses that."
Here the reference to awe is all important. Etymologically awe is rooted in northern European words that have to do with dread and a Greek root to do with grief and distress. These are fascinating connections when Jung one considers Jung's statement that:
"the experience of the Self is always a defeat for the ego."
Jung's use of the terms numinous and numinosity are essential in this attempt to understand the experience of the self. He delineated two sub-sets of numinous experience which he termed the fascinosum and tremendum. That which fascinates or enchants or bewitches and could be related to the love of god; and that which makes one tremble and is related to the terror or fear of god. The experience of the Self is essentially an experience of awe with either or both of these two qualities. It is not elation and euphoria, for that is a state of the ego identified with its experience rather than defeated by it, or, as Robert Johnson put it, "seeking inflation not illumination". The ego seeking relationship to the self consciously, rather than seeking to possess the attributes of the self either directly or by projection, will experience an awe which humbles rather than edifies it; it will suffer a sense of loss which paradoxically nurtures and grounds it.
Individuation: Conflict and Interplay
All of the religious traditions have their own representations of the path of individuation and Jung was very aware of this. When during the Nietzsche's Zarathustra Seminars he remarks that:
"falling in line with the Self is such an important psychological experience that it has a most significant name. What would that be?"
and is given the responses;
"Tao"
, and,"individuation"
, he replies;"Yes, they are synonymous."
The Hindu and Buddhist notion of dharma too is an expression of the individuation journey.
"to practice dharma is to know the truth of ones own being and to perceive the higher will that runs through all of life."
Such is an expression of the requirements of attempting to tread the path of individuation, or to "fall in line with the Self." For the individual to live her or his dharma is to live with a commitment to realising the authentic expression of oneself as a spark of the divine, to play one's ordained part as consciously as one can. In the Mahabarata Krishna says:
"When dharma is protected dharma protects, when it is not protected it destroys.
and
"Sometimes the only way to protect dharma is to forget dharma.
So dharma too like the Self is a paradoxical reality. To be overly attached to one's dharma is to risk inflation and self importance and to forget it an act of faith in which one allows the Self to lead one. Dharma seen at the level of the individual life is here clearly synonymous with what Jung calls `individuation'. It has to do with the struggle to know ones own being/fate and the capacity to live in accordance with that knowledge. For Jung the questions of fate or destiny and free will were intricately bound up in the matter of individuation. As he put it:
"Every life is the realisation of a whole, that is, of a self, for which reason this realisation can also be called `individuation'. All life is bound to individual carriers who realise it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every carrier is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and their realisation of these alone makes sense of life. True, the `sense' is often something that could just as well be called `nonsense', for there is a certain incommensurability between the mystery of existence and human understanding. Sense and nonsense are merely man-made labels which serve to give us a reasonably valid sense of direction."
This is also the path that Jung in a darker moment called a path of "blood and suffering". It is certainly a path of conflict for the ego insofar as it remains identified with personas rooted in the collective consciousness. Reflecting on this for us in the West for whom the Christian tradition has consciously or unconsciously been central in our collective values Jung says this conflict does:
"Happen to everyone in whom the Christian dominant has decayed. For this reason here have always been people who...set forth under cover by devious paths ... to seek direct experience of their eternal roots, and, following the lure of the restless unconscious psyche find themselves in the wilderness where, like Jesus they come up against the son of darkness."
Apart from anything else that darkness consists of facing one's isolation and aloneness in life; facing the fact that in being true to one individual nature in the face of collective pressures be they family, peer group or broader social values one is confronted with the shadow as one's inner `son of darkness'. For above all else the individuation process is about differentiating oneself from the collective identities one has adopted in order to allow the development of a truly individual personality in line with the urgings of the Self. That this has implications both individually and collectively is what Jung refers to when he says:
"The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his (or her) inner contradiction, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposite halves."
In the Mahabarata Krishna speaks of the conflict which cannot be avoided, of the war which in fact must be fought, and this is an image of the process of individuation made conscious. Without conflict there is no conscious relationship to the individuation process for the demands of the Self are always threatening to the ego's identification with collective values and personas. The whole of the Mahabarata is an image of the individuation process, of the state of intense inner dividedness which it constellates and the way in which all collective values to which the ego clings will be brought into question. This applies even to matters of principle and morality if they are not grounded an inner sense of ethics free of collective contamination.
All evasive devices employed to avoid conflict are in some measure attempts to escape the heavy demands that the Self places on those who aspire to conscious individuation. It is for them, as it was for Christ in the garden at Gethsemane, a case of:
"...if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt."
The cup of one's fate/dharma/destiny, and the immense inner conflict which it entails can only pass from one if it slides once again into unconsciousness, and then there is no longer conscious relationship to individuation, and the threat of conflict maybe for a time recedes, or is able to be projected again. As Jung puts it:
" as long as people are unable to realise what individuality is, what the Self is, it is projected and there is nothing to be done about it."
The way of the ego aligned to the Self, or the path of seeking conscious relationship to one's individuation process, does not only lead to a crucifying conflict. Within it also is the possibility of transformation, the possibility of release and resurrection. Trod with courage and conviction leads inevitably to those experiences (of crucifixion and resurrection) which, however, constellate a paradoxical sense of at oneness with the inner purpose of one's own life. In relation to the Self all oppositions, all polarities within the personality, which are so problematic to the ego otherwise, are contained within a paradoxical mandorla relationship. Here-in the tension is not dissipated, as is the case when the ego seeks to evade its inner splitness. Rather it is brought into focus in a way that, if the ego can stand it, leads to transformation through a stripping away of all that is unnecessary.
What is unnecessary however is not the everyday life as we so often believe. That we should associate the Self only with the language and experience of miracles, awe and wonder is not wholly surprising. Should it speak the language of the every day we would (and do) simply take it for granted and attribute it to ourselves (to our own `god-almightiness' as Jung called it). Yet it is not that the Self is not active in our everyday lives either, for the Self is ever present, offering continual opportunities for us to affirm or deny its presence as we choose our daily path in life. Those experiences of awe are evidence our consciousness of the presence and action of the Self, not of its absence in all the rest of our daily lives.
If the ego becomes too identified with these awesome experiences and adopts to too spiritualised attitude, such as seeing everyday life as of less value than they are, inflation and alienation from life can result. Here a powerful `holier than thou' attitude can develop which leads to prosthelitising and fundamentalist type fanaticism which is necessary because as H A Williams puts it, "fanaticism is a strategy to avoid doubt." This is necessary because the ego holding such an unrealistic and inflated view of its own importance is in fact unconsciously identified with the Self. Such a position must of necessity cast a huge `shadow of doubt'.
It is only the ego emptied sufficiently of such identifications with its worldly personas, or its experiences of the Self, that can be truly open to the Self, and so become, at least in moments, the Son (or Daughter) of God. Here the ego is neither slavishly adapted to collective values or inflatedly identified with the numinous experience of the Self. It has rather become the instrument or organ of the Self, able to give expression to its intentions towards wholeness and to be called to account for its shortcomings without losing of faith and collapsing into despair.
In relation to the Self the ego comes to know what it must do. It is there-in challenged to engage with its fate, its unique and individual life, in the way that Jung refers to when says that:
"Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do."
The ultimate act of will by the ego is its willing submission to just that demand, to do what it must do! In order to become the agent of the Self the ego must freely choose to do what it must do, what the Self is calling it to do. That always involves a sense of powerlessness and defeat for the ego, for it is thus required to submit to a greater will and to acknowledge its not knowing what it must do. For that knowledge rests always and only with the Self, and cannot ever be fully grasped by the ego. It knows only in moments, in flashes of illumination or insight which quickly slip from its grasp, leaving at best an afterglow of awe and at worst a frustrated yearning after that which was but which has, like so much sand, slipped through the fingers. It is a daunting fact that the mystery of life is, as Jung has put it, "incommensurable with human understanding", which is a faculty of the limited consciousness of the ego. So to quote Jung once more ending:
"What is it in the end, that induces a person to go his/her own way and to rise out of unconscious identity with the mass as out of a swathing mist? Not necessity, for necessity comes to many, and they all take refuge in convention. Not moral decision, for nine times out of ten we decide for convention likewise. What is it, then that inexorably tips the scales in favour of the extra-ordinary? It is what is commonly called vocation: an irrational factor that destines a person to emancipate him/herself from the herd and from its well-worn paths. True personality is always a vocation and puts its trust in it as in God....But vocation acts like a law of God from which there is no escape...He must obey his own law, as if it were a daemon whispering to him of new and wonderful paths. Anyone with a vocation hears the voice of the inner person: he/she is called."
Rodney Ravenswood (Copyright 1994)
