From a psychology point of view I tend to be a Jungian. I sometimes mention him in some of my posts because over the years I have read most of his complete works. I should say I approach him critically these days, yet generally most of the stuff I read about him look like they have been written by a six year old. People with psychology backgrounds are generally pretty clueless, and in fact, I have rarely seen anyone with a psychology background give anything resembling an acceptable account of Jungian theory—least of all "Jungians".
 |
| Carl Gustav Jung |
Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion than an Archetype is determined in regard to its content, in other words that is a kind of unconscious idea (if such an expression be admissible)....The Archetype is in itself is empty and purely formal, nothing but a facultas praeformandi, a possibility of representation which is given a priori. The representations themselves are not inherited, only the forms... Jung P79 Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious
The real trouble is that few fail to grasp that Jung is a Kantian. In his autobiography he calls reading Kant in his youth the great adventure of his life, and I strongly believe the Kantian Weltanschauung permeated his way of thinking to the very end. For Jung, time and space were Archetypes. In Kant, the way the world really is (in-itself), is unknowable. We can only see the world through coloured spectacles, so to speak, but if we took the spectacles off we'd be blind. Time and space, according to Kant, are not characteristics of the thing-in-itself (the way the world "really" is), but a "colouring" that the spectacle of our mind imposes onto the world in trying to grasp it. In other words, time and space are a priori pre-conditions of perception. Jung's term for such a pre-condition of experience is an Archetype.
Man cannot make [the Archetype]; on the contrary, it is always the a priori element in his moods, reactions, impulses, and whatever else is spontaneous in psychic life. It is something that lives of itself, that makes us live; it is a life behind consciousness that cannot be completely integrated with it, but from which, on the contrary, consciousness arises. Jung: p27 Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious.
The difference with the term Archetype is that whereas Kant* asks how we perceive the world in time and space, Jung asks the psychological question of "how do we confer meaning to our existence?" Such a simple question, yet so profound in its implication. Great minds ask great questions, and what more devastatingly simple a question could Jung have asked? Only a genius thinks of the obvious.
 |
| Jung read Kant when has was seventeen years old. In Memory, Dreams, Reflections Jung was to write: "It brought about a revolutionary alternation of my attitude to the world and to life" |
To Jung, the Archetypes of the mind gave meaning to life. We do this unconsciously, just as we involuntarily perceive the world in terms of space and time. This giving of meaning to our experience is also the essence of our creativity, for the Archetypes take the forms of dreams, myths and fantasies. We colour the meanings of our existence with a mythico-symbolic dimension, which we can no more choose to cease projecting onto our world, than we can choose to cease perceiving the world in terms of space and time. This mythico-symbolic function is fundamental to the human mind. Although a late evolutionary development, this sort of symbolic thinking can be found already be found with homo neanderthalensis. Creativity is the very essence of what makes us human.
 |
| A Neanderthal burial in a deeply symbolic "sleeping" position, often with other artefacts such as reindeer vertebrae, animal skins, stone tools, red ocher, and even multiple varieties of flowers |
Now for those Wagnerians who have read Feuerbach on religion, the term "projection" will be familiar. Feuerbach thought that religious ideas are just human psychological motifs projected onto the world e.g. awe before nature becomes nature mysticism. God too was an anthropomorphic projection of our own Being onto the world. Jung merely takes this further, and inquires into how the mind systematically projects its inner creative-mythological meanings onto the world. All religion is mythology, but it is precisely because of this that it is profoundly meaningful to our minds, for it reflects the imprint of evolution on our minds.
You are probably wondering how this post is meant to be light and fluffy. Well, recently I found myself single again and on the dating scene. This is something many people approach with all the joy of going to the dentist. Probably the single most interesting things I have ever read on the subject is this book by David Keirsey:
It is about personality and personality types. As an old Jungian, it suits me fine as this Myer-Briggs type of approach is really just a superbly rendered refinement of the ideas summarised in Volume 6 of Jung's Complete Works: Psychological Types. I've also gone back and re-read this volume. It was indeed Carl Jung who introduced the psychological terms intraversion-extraversion to the world. You hear these words all the time, as they have passed into common usage, with most forgetting where they originated.
In terms of ideal matching of partner's, Keirsey develops Jung's argument that an ideal match has complementary personality variables. I will leave the reader to read the book, but suffice to say that, for example, extraverts are matched to intraverts—one is the talker, the other the listener. You can't have two talkers, or two listeners in a relationship.
The four Jungian variables of personality are:
Extraversion vs Intraversion
Sensing vs iNtuition
Feeling vs Thinking
Judging vs Perceiving
If you understood what I meant by Jung being a neo-Kantian, you can also look at this as a matter of data processing. In fact, Jung pretty much says so in his Psychological Types.
Although it is true that everyone orients himself in accordance with the data supplied by the outside world, we see every day that the data in themselves are only relatively decisive....Now, when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decisions and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective conditions, we speak of an extraverted attitude.
Jung Psychological Types p333 (hardcover edition).
Extraverts seek truth by looking for more and more data. Intraverts prefer to collect less data, but to mine what data is given with deeper reflectiveness.
Some prefer simple data collection/mining—plain sensing of the raw stimulus. These types enjoy bathing in the senses, which is why cooks and painters are usually sensing types. For some the enjoyment and stimulus of the raw external sensory data is what matters. For others there is abstraction from the raw data, so that only an intraverted subjective impression remains that grows increasingly distant from the raw sensory data.
 |
"If several painters were to paint the same landscape, each trying to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will be different from the others, not merely because of differences in ability, but chiefly because of different ways of seeing; indeed, in some of the paintings there will be a distinct psychic difference in mood and the treatment of colour and form....How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. Its predominance sometimes amounts to a complete suppression of the object's influence..." Jung Psychological Types p394 |
Still other types prefer a complex style of data collection/mining, which Jung calls intuition. Intuition is just a more complex, creative way of collecting/mining data, that may involve more complex knight's moves in deductive thought, often so complex that the person may struggle to explain how they came to the conclusion (ie. it is a subconscious process). The downside is that it can lead you to bark up the wrong tree, but if this faculty is developed then it can lead to remarkable results—like a Sherlock Holmes, in a flash of inspiration, suddenly deducing an enormous amount of information out of the tiniest lead that would have escaped anyone else. Indeed, Holmes is also a slightly mad creative-intuitive type who uses cocaine and plays the violin. The fact that the intuitive process is subconscious can lead some to believe that they have magical powers such as ESP, although others with a better developed inferior thinking process can actually, after some reflection, come to rationally explain how the "little birdie" in the back of their heads came to its conclusions.
Jung also follows Schopenhauer, whom he read along with Kant, in agreeing that we are driven by subconscious forces, usually of an irrational nature. This colours our thinking process. Or as David Hume put it: "reason shall always be the handmaid of the passion". You see people rationalise all sorts of bizarre things all the time. Just listen to dilettantes explaining away climate change with fantastic pseudo-scientific nonsense theories. Yet these people believe themselves to be perfectly rational in their thinking.
In the modern Jungian personality classification system, the thinkers of the world are either NF (iNtuition—Feeling) or NT (iNtuition—Thinking) types. They either intuitively accept that their head follows their heart—NF, Feeling types—or else, they trust only in hard rationality and strict logic—NT, Thinking types. The thinking of the Feeling type is synthetic, and starts with the big picture, and then the details follow. For example: "we must make sacrifices to preserve the future world of our children" (emotive), followed only secondarily by: "here's the data why climate change is important". In short the thinking process is Idealistic.
 |
| Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" are the words of a classic NF Idealist personality type. He starts out summarising the grand sweep of the Zeitgeist before moving onto specifics |
The mind of of the second NT Thinking type is more rational. They will nitpick on little logical inconsistencies. They are Rationalists who believe that their head must govern their hearts. Their thinking is analytic, starting from the raw data and logically works its way out to the big picture. For example: "here is the data showing that climate change is important, and here is what the impact will be—therefore we have to do something."
Finally, there is judging vs perceiving. Some people are quicker to pass judgement, or to come to a conclusion. Others prefer to continue to probe for new data or stimulus, hoping to find a yet unturned stone, or unexplored avenue.
So when you go through standard Myer-Briggs personality tests, you get a four letter type, which in my case is: INFP (Intraverted—iNtuition—Feeling—Perceiving). It's quite extraordinary how well it predicts your personality. Descriptions of an INFP sound uncannily like me. The type is often described the Idealist (although Keirsey prefers to reserve the term Idealist to describe all NF personality types—ENFJ, ENFP, INFP, INFJ). Well, I have always felt a deep sympathy for Idealist philosophers such as Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer. Politically I would also consider myself an idealist. I even see Jung as an offshoot of Kantian idealism, similar to Schopenhauer.
When it comes to taste in art, the INFP type is said to prefer things much more deeply esoteric, even mystical. I certainly like my Second Viennese School, and Darmstadt Generation composers. It is also said that Beethoven may have been an INFP. The important variables are the NF part which means that the head is driven by the heart in a way that is deeply complex, deep thinking and often quirkily unpredictable in its profoundly intuitive processes. Sounds like Beethoven to me.
Sorry, this post isn't looking all that light and fluffy, is it? It's just not how the INFP mind works. But since I already mentioned the dating bit in Keirsey's book, I couldn't help but read a little about how an INFP personality type approaches affairs of the heart:
They feel a need to be in a committed, loving relationship. If they are not involved in such a relationship, the INFP will be either actively searching for one, or creating one in their own minds. INFPs tendency to be idealistic and romantically-minded may cause them to fantasize frequently about a "more perfect" relationship or situation...
Unfortunately, it sums me up too well. This finally brings me to what the title of the post promised. There is a strong reason I tend to identify strongly with the sort of intensely passionate, indeed quasi-mystical, yearning for a love unto death, as you commonly find in Wagner. This all consuming yearning for an idealistic love is hardly the sort of thing the vast majority of the population are even capable of having any deep sympathy for, other than us Idealist NF personality types.
Idealist NF types can sometimes have a habit of starting up what Keirsey calls Pygmalion Projects, where every partner starts looking rather mortal, flesh and blood, leading the Idealist to project high blown romantic feelings onto a constant stream of new partners. Does that sound like Richard Wagner to you? It does to me.
In amorous affairs SP Artisan types (ESTP, ESFP, ISFP, ISTP), in contrast to NF Idealist types, just want to have sensual fun. SP types have had lots of sexual partners and have experimented with all sorts of things exploring their sexuality to its fullest. The "P" of Perceiving can also mean probing, just as the "S" of Sensing can also mean sensuality. While they are great at probing, and thoroughly exploring their sensuality, they often have difficulty staying in long term relationships. I've certainly had my heart broken by a breathtakingly beautiful and outrageously fun-loving ESTP type, whom I passionately loved in a "Tristan" sort of way, as only an Idealist could.
SJ Guardian types tend to be more sexually reserved, and more conservative in their attitudes towards sex and marriage.
Female Guardians, in particular, usually have only limited sexual experience before they marry, even in an age of sexual freedom. For SJs, there is always the unexpressed attitude that "nice girls don't." If they do, it is likely that peer pressure led them into sexual activity because it was the thing to do. Male Guardians have more opportunity, and more social sanction, to sow their wild oats, but they tend not to do so joyously and freely like Artisans, feeling instead a sense of responsibility to their partner, and feeling dishonest, even shabby, if they take advantage of a young woman.
Keirsey Please Understand Me
NT types tend to be more rational in a geeky way, and rarely are terribly adventurous sexually:
Once in a college or business environment, extraverted Rationals might decide (quite deliberately) to date around for the fun of it, and some might experiment with sexual practices. But when establishing more lasting relationships they are not likely to give in to impulse. Indeed, and as a matter of personal ethics, Rationals usually regard sexual promiscuity with distaste.
Keirsey Please Understand Me
Keirsey also thinks that in romantic matches, NFs and NTs are ideal (likewise SP and SJ matches). If the thinking of the NF is synthetic, the NT is analytic, in a way that these opposites complement one another, just as the extravert and intravert make a complementary match. However, as 85% of the population consists of SP Artisan and SJ Guardian types, it can make it tricky for NF and NT thinking types to find each other.
Unfortunately for me Keirsey tells us that the INFP personality type has the greatest difficulty of all in finding a partner. We are told this is partly because the INFP tends to have all sorts of high blown and esoteric interests. Or as one account of the INFP personality type states:
They often have a special affection for the arts, especially the avant garde, as they love experiencing new concepts in self-expression.
This is true, however, topics such Anton Webern's 12-tone composition methods, Pierre Boulez, Stockhausen, or Schopenhauerian influences on Wagner's operas rarely make for great date conversation. And don't laugh. Nor does spending excessive evenings blogging about Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Althusser, Derrida, Jung, Hegel, and Wagner mean that I get out as much as I should to socialise. So if you see fewer blog posts here, maybe you might understand why!
Notes:
* On p69 of Theodor W. Adorno—An Introduction there is nice summary of what Kant is all about:
Kant proposes that the subject's world is not substantively independent of the subject. The subject constitutes objectivity, not randomly or individually, but following rules that are intrinsic to the subject. The rules do not derive from experience, but enable us a priori to have experiences
You can see that Jung is all about applying Kant's insights to psychology and asking what the innate psychological conditions are through which we are granted experience, through which we give meaning to our personal life. This is Jung's genius.
No comments:
Post a Comment