Archetypes as symbolic forms

There has always been confusion and disagreement about the nature of the terms archetype and complex in Jungian circles, not to mention non-Jungian ones. Another ongoing concern is whether Jung's concept of the archetype and complex can be justified in terms of current scientific research, most notably that of neurophysiologists and others interested in the brain and consciousness. This paper proposes a theory of the formation of complexes, namely, that they are created through self-organization within the brain/mind. Self-organization is a process typical of large complex systems, and is generally accepted to operate within the brain and to be important in its functioning. Examples of self-organization in biology are related to the psychic processes that form the complexes. It is then natural to define the archetype in terms of the complex, and the authors propose a definition of the archetype as an equivalence class of complexes. On this view, the archetype is an emergent property of the activity of the brain/mind, and is, appropriately, defined at the level at which it emerges. This definition is in line with the original development of Jung's ideas, in that he derived the concept of the archetype from his earlier discovery of the feeling-toned complex.

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 57%

Archetypes, complexes and self‐organization

Saunders¹,

Skar²

2001

“…In 1996, Tresan used emergentism, supervenience and complexity theory as ways to describe archetypes, thus heralding a new way in which archetypes were discussed. Later, in arguing for archetypes as ‘symbolic forms’ without any biological underpinning, Pietikainen (1998) generated substantial debate in this Journal. In subsequent responses it was not uncommon for archetypes to be seen as ‘emergent properties’ and for aspects of Dynamic Systems Theory, self‐organization and emergentism to be used in the discourse.…”

Section: The New Approaches To Archetype Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

A reappraisal of classical archetype theory and its implications for theory and practice

Merchant¹

2009

This paper begins with an overview of contemporary approaches to archetype theory and notes the radical nature of certain deductions. Some argue that there is no 'archetype-as-such' as a pre-existing entity at the core of a complex driving its formation whilst the findings of current neuroscience are calling into question one very thing on which the classical theory is built--innatism. Knox's argument for image schemas raises the question as to the extent to which archetypes can be conceived in any preformationist sense. The question is then posed--to what extent can Jung's classical theory of archetypes be read in light of these current models? The case examples Jung uses to evidence the existence of archetypes, his explications of synchronicity and his own Philemon experience are then reappraised. The conclusion is drawn that it is difficult to evidence the existence of autonomous archetypes unrelated to personal affective experience. Not only would this be expected by emergent/developmental models of archetype but it can explain many of Jung's disjunctive statements about archetype constellation; the difficulties in separating personal and collective psychic content and Jung's apparent Lamarckianism. The implications of these models for theory, clinical practice and analyst training are then offered for discussion.

“…As such, Colman's conclusions further challenge the concept of pre-formationism which has been used to underlay the argument for innate archetypes. Furthermore, his model expands our conceptions to do with the socio-cultural underpinnings to symbolic imagery which again have been forged in this Journal from as far back as Pietikainen (1998) and which continues (see Roesler, 2012). It is inspiring that Act and Image can 'kick with such force'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Colman, Warren. Act and Image: The Emergence of Symbolic Imagination. New Orleans: Spring Journal and Books. 2016. Pp. 338. Pbk. £24.96.

Merchant

2018

In Act and Image, Colman addresses a topic central to analytical psychology, that of the origin and nature of symbolic imagination. In doing so he traverses an extraordinarily wide range of disciplines as diverse as historical anthropology, cognitive archaeology and paleontology in addition to analytical psychology. And whilst arguing for a position, the book's flowing and readable style makes the research Colman presents highly accessible to a general Jungian readership.It is noteworthy that the responses Act and Image has already elicited as in 'ground breaking', 'thought-provoking', 'rich and vital' and a 'tour de force' are a testament not only to the depth and range of the complexities discussed but to the challenging conclusions Colman draws. As a consequence this book will be of immense interest not only to those Jungians who are interested in symbolic imagery but also those more concerned with the theoretical underpinnings to analytical psychology and archetypal theory in particular.Beginning with the evocative image of the 40,000 year old (Upper Paleolithic) Lion Man artifact from Hohlenstein-Stadel in Germany, Colman poses his fundamental question (and one which substantially occupied Jung himself) -where do symbols come from? This is the book's starting point in explaining how such an artifact conjoining human and lion characteristics could come into being. The Lion Man image and the book's title could lead some readers to expect an elucidation of early hominid archetypal experience, and Colman does outline the classical Jungian position on archetype. However he then forges into more contemporary critiques of it, especially those which see archetypes as an emergent phenomenon rather than being inherited innate psychic structures. Such an emergentist position prompts Colman to argue for a different view of mind than that understood by Jung. He sees mind as derived from actual action within a socio-cultural context leading to what he terms an 'extended mind'. It is this, he argues, which leads to symbolic image and thought. To evidence his argument, Colman overviews current research on human evolution and how it is indicating such a social underpinning to symbolic expression. Turning then to cognitive archaeology, Colman adds the second dimension to his thesis, 'material engagement', that is, the way physical engagement with objects actually shapes the mind. By bringing these diverse findings together, Colman makes a compelling case that symbols actually 'constitute the realities they represent' and that 'mind is constituted in and through social living in a symbolically-enriched cultural environment'. To understand further the way that artifacts like the Lion Man could emerge within the evolutionary pathway he outlines, Colman found himself drawn to the anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer societies and their ways of being in, and thinking about, the world. This led him to the idea of 'extended mind