Heh. Our Keeper of the Psychobabble Gates strikes again!
Just remember, Lydia, one man's psychobabble is another man's gospel.
I'm of two minds about this whole notion of the unconscious (and therein lies a pun, no doubt!), and even more so about some "collective" unconscious. On the one hand, it is, indeed (to me), pure psychobabble--unintelligible "mental fairy" jargon for which there is not a single shred of evidence. I want to say, "brains make minds, period." Emotions, feelings, sentiments, wishes, dreams, intentional stances, thoughts, and even rational discourse are all things that are produced in, and by, the brain. How? Who really knows? Yet. And I'm sure an army of white lab coats are working on this. Still, on the other hand, like many concepts human beings come up with, I find
some Jungian models that ostensibly explain
some features of human behaviour to be, well, useful... in
some ways.
In some cultures, history is seen as being linear, with some end or goal, while, in others, it's considered cyclical, like a great wheel. History is neither. But looking at it from this or that viewpoint sometimes helps us structure our understanding of our place in the Great Ocean that is the universe.
I think the same thing applies on the more modest level of human behaviour. Looking at how we behave through a materialistic lens is but one option. Yes, we are a coherent (or semi-coherent, for some) amalgam of cells (and genes) drawn up in a host of biological processes. Our brains are no exception to this. This, at base, is what we are. No argument there. But we are also something more, I think--however we may wish to deny that. Our brains have evolved in such a way that we've become symbol-making and pattern-seeking creatures. Only humans are able "to see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower"; only humans find it a meaningful activity to, as it were, lift the hood of nature and peer into its workings to see what makes it tick... the better to see what makes
us tick. We are a weird species, we humans; we often feel lost and alone in the universe, like an orphan abandoned in a huge mansion whose owner we've never met. Thus, like an orphan, we amuse ourselves... with ourselves. We look for ways to inject some meaning into our existences, to make some sense of our experience (that is, beyond that which it may--or may not--inherently have). Thus, art. Thus, science. Thus, psychology. Thus, Jung. Thus, the anima.
The concept of anima can be useful (or amusing). But we musn't take it for more than it is. It's a thought generated by a brain in search of its own mysteries. That doesn't mean it's reprehensible for all that. In this regard, it's certainly not as harmful as, say, religious fanaticism. You know, near the end of his life, Jung had become interested in many things the more rational among us would consider absolute gobbledygook--the tarot, synchronicity (the elevation of randomness and coincidence to high priesthood), flying saucers, etc., etc. Still, that doesn't in any way diminish the usefulness of some of his more "poetic" theories--the collective unconscious (with its pantheon of archetypal figures) chief among them.
I may not be the Jungian that, say, Elizabeth, is. But neither am I ready to so easily dismiss some of Jung's more useful ideas. Having said all this, I'm not sure yet what I think of this whole anima/animus thingy. Maybe I'll have an answer... in my next life.
Love,
CJ
