Revisioning Individuation

Bringing Jung into the integral fold

“But the Jungian light is one we must use with much caution…”[1]

In his many works Wilber discusses Jung relatively briefly. The concerns he raises however, are legitimate. Jung’s reticence to embrace the spiritual nature of his work has led Jungian psychology to diminish spirit, to avoid confrontation with spirit. Yet, were Jung alive today I believe he would see in Wilber a way to express that which he was ‘aching’ to affirm. Read Jung and you see spirit dancing everywhere. Unfortunately Jung cautiously conformed to the prejudices of the day and he restrained his most controversial conclusions. Privately, apparently, the story was quite different. Jeffrey Raff, a Jungian therapist who wishes to restore Jung’s spiritual side says this:

“A student, colleague, and friend of Dr. Jung, von Franz seemed to us to hold the key to a deeper understanding of Jung’s theories. We spoke frequently of the written tradition versus the oral tradition of Jungian psychology, for there were major differences between the Jung of the Collected Works and the Jung as von Franz presented him. Von Franz spoke of a Jung who was a spiritual teacher, who knew full well that the inner work was of paramount importance.”[2]

I believe the time is now ripe to revisit Jung. With Wilber’s model in mind I believe we can re-spiritualise Jung’s theories. In doing so I also believe we open the way for an integral path of individuation, from chthonic Self as dragon/serpent to the radiant Self as unio mystica. Such a path will use ‘active imagination’ as an essential ingredient in recovering the Self from the unconscious realms of the psyche.

ARCHETYPES

Wilber’s principle criticism of Jung is that he failed to clearly define archetypes. A view shared by Michael Adams, who says:

“…and yet no other term has been the source of so much definitional confusion. Part of the reason is that Jung defined ‘archetype’ in different ways at different times. Sometimes he spoke of archetypes as if they were images. Sometimes, he distinguished more precisely between archetypes as unconscious forms devoid of any specific content and archetypal images as the conscious contents of those forms.”[3]

Wilber argues that this in turn led Jung and the Jungians to commit the pre/trans fallacy. In ‘The Eye of Spirit’ Wilber gives three definitions of archetypes as used by Jung.[4]

1. Archaic Image. Jung’s earliest formulation and the most widely used. In this sense archetypes are ‘phylogenetic heritage’ stored in the collective unconscious.

2. Structure devoid of Content. Jung held that archetypes themselves were devoid of content but attracted symbols to them. The archetypes are the deep structures behind the many symbolic representations.